# commentaries

text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> His memory shall perish from the earth. He shall have no name in the street-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This was the most awful fate for an oriental sheikh or leader. <a href='B:290 26:14'>Isa 26:14</a> uses this language about Babylon, who initially refused to let the Jews return.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He shall be driven from light into darkness, and chased out of the world-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea of being driven away into darkness is that of condemnation, as is used of the driving of God's condemned people into exile (<a href='B:290 8:22'>Isa 8:22</a>; <a href='B:300 23:12'>Jer 23:12</a>). Again, Job suffered the condemnation of the wicked without being wicked as charged. And just as the Lord's death made Him be perceived as an accursed criminal, although He was innocent, so the friends' judgments of Job made him appear "wicked" when he wasn't.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He shall have neither son nor grandson among his people, nor any remaining where he lived-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Clearly an oblique reference to the fate of Job's children. Perhaps the desolation and emptying of homes and areas in Israel and Judah is in view, after the people were carried into exile.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Those who come after shall be astonished at his day, as those who went before were frightened-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Astonished" is s:w. "desolation" in the descriptions of the fate of the land when its people would go into exile (<a href='B:30 26:34-35'>Lev 26:34-35</a>; <a href='B:310 1:4'>Lam 1:4</a>). The promise of restoration was that the new covenant would change this and restore the desolate (<a href='B:300 33:10'>Jer 33:10</a>). Bildad failed to see this, assuming that all judgment was to be eternal. The idea of ultimate restoration was out of his mind, as it was with the faithless exiles.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Surely such are the dwellings of the unrighteous. This is the place of him who doesn’t know God- Clearly Job did "know God". We see here for all time the danger of dashing headlong along a path of reasoning about a person which leads us to a totally wrong and slanderous position about them. <a href='B:220 36:26'>Job 36:26</a> uses the same phrase in what appears to be Elihu's take on this- which is that in fact God is too great to be known by any man. His final appearance makes it clear that to know God is to repent and accept His grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Then Job answered-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This speech sees Job bitterly lament his treatment by God and the friends. Indeed everything was so unfair. But out of all this deep self pity, he comes to the classic expression of his faith in resurrection and judgment in :25-27. Taking any of his statements alone would lead to the impression that he was almost narcissistic in his self-pity, but it is out of this down cycle that is born the expression of faith and yet deeper understanding of :25-27.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> How long will you torment me, and crush me with words?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If nothing else we see here the power of words. The friends had come to comfort, but ended up crushing him. Eliphaz had earlier concluded that Job was "crushed" (s:w:) because of his sins (<a href='B:220 5:4'>Job 5:4</a>) and so he thought he could crush Job with words as well. Even if Job had indeed been condemned, his friends ought still to have sought to save him. Through this experience he came to bear the "torment" which the exiles would during the Babylonian invasion and captivity (s:w. <a href='B:290 51:23'>Isa 51:23</a>; <a href='B:310 1:4'>Lam 1:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> You have reproached me ten times. You aren’t ashamed that you attack me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> There have not yet been ten speeches by the friends. So "ten times" is being used to mean 'totally' or 'many times', as in <a href='B:10 31:41'>Gen 31:41</a>; <a href='B:40 14:22'>Num 14:22</a>; <a href='B:160 4:12'>Neh 4:12</a>; <a href='B:340 1:20'>Dan 1:20</a>. We must understand that Semitic languages don't use numbers always in the strictly literal sense which European languages tend to. The friends were so sure that Job was condemned that they lost all sense of shame and personal guilt in how they treated him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If it is true that I have erred, my error remains with myself-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The aggression of the friends was because they thought they had the right to join in the apparent Divine condemnation of him; rather than leaving the matter between God and Job. This mentality is seen all around us today. We note however that Job is still qualifying his sinfulness ["if it is true::."]; and his final repentance reflects a total shedding of this kind of careful self qualification.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If indeed you will magnify yourselves against me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The Messianic Psalms record David and the Lord Jesus feeling that their enemies had magnified themselves against them (<a href='B:230 35:26'>Psa 35:26</a>; <a href='B:230 38:16'>Psa 38:16</a>; <a href='B:230 41:9'>Psa 41:9</a>; <a href='B:230 55:12'>Psa 55:12</a>). <a href='B:230 41:9'>Psa 41:9</a> applies the term to Judas, who was typified by the friends as the Lord Jesus was by Job.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And plead against me my reproach-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Pleading is legal language. Job had done nothing wrong to the friends, but he feels they had come into court to quote his "reproach" as evidence he had sinned, and therefore were demanding his judgment. When they should have left any possible sin as a matter between Job and God (:4).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> know now that God has subverted me, and has surrounded me with His net-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Subverted" translates a Hebrew word which clearly means to be perverse or wicked with another person. Elihu sternly rebukes Job for this statement, saying that God will not "pervert judgment" (<a href='B:220 34:12'>Job 34:12</a>). Again we marvel at the grace of how God later says that Job has spoken what was right about Him (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>). Whilst that statement may refer simply to Job's expression of total repentance, we would still expect it to be qualified by some clause to the effect that "although earlier Job accused me of many awful things". There is no such clause in <a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>. The absence of it, bearing in mind Job's wrong statements about God which Elihu has reminded us of, is surely noticeable and intended to be noticed. We are left marvelling at the extent of grace and imputed righteousness, through faith by grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, I cry out because of injustice, but I am not heard. I cry for help, but there is no justice-</p><h4> Job now turns to lament how he feels God has treated him, having complained of how the friends have unjustly treated him. Job feels he has 'cried out' to God for justice and not been heard (<a href='B:220 19:7'>Job 19:7</a>; <a href='B:220 30:20'>Job 30:20</a>); and that there is nothing wrong with crying out to God in distress, it is a perfectly natural reaction (<a href='B:220 24:12'>Job 24:12</a>). One comment upon this is that the young ravens cry out to God for food and yet are not always heard (<a href='B:220 38:41'>Job 38:41</a> s:w:). But God in the wider picture sustains all of creation by grace. Job did well to cry out to God even if there was no answer, because the hypocrites do not 'cry out' to God when they are facing judgment (<a href='B:220 36:13'>Job 36:13</a> s:w:). Job feels hurt that God has not responded to his 'crying out' because he says that when the needy cried out to him, he had heard (<a href='B:220 29:12'>Job 29:12</a> s:w:). But here we see his works based approach; he thought that his response to those who cried out to him meant that therefore God must respond to his crying out. And God is not so primitive. His apparent silence is because His response is not predicated upon human works and charity. It is by grace alone, as is taught in His final appearance to Job. The exiles likewise were to finally see the response to their crying out to God in the restoration (<a href='B:290 58:9'>Isa 58:9</a>), just as their representative Jonah cried out to God from the belly of sheol amidst the sea of nations, and was heard (s:w. <a href='B:390 2:2'>Jon 2:2</a>).</h4>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He has walled up my way so that I can’t pass, and has set darkness in my paths-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job is feeling confined, imprisoned, blocked in. But this was what happened to Judah in their judgment (<a href='B:350 2:6'>Hos 2:6</a>); Job although righteous was the representative of Judah. See on <a href='B:220 10:11-12'>Job 10:11-12</a>.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'><a href='B:40 22:22'>Num 22:22</a> describes how an Angel of God stood in a narrow, walled path before Balaam, so that his donkey fell down beneath him. That Angel is described as a "satan", an adversary, to Balaam. Job comments how the sufferings which the 'Satan' brought upon him were God 'walling up my way that I cannot pass' (<a href='B:220 19:8'>Job 19:8</a>). The connection is clear- and surely indicates that Job's satan was a satan-Angel, acting as an adversary to Job just as such an Angel did to Balaam. See on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>. Job and Balaam have certain similarities- both were prophets (in Job's case see <a href='B:220 4:4'>Job 4:4</a>; <a href='B:220 23:12'>Job 23:12</a>; <a href='B:220 29:4'>Job 29:4</a> cp. 15:8; <a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a>; <a href='B:660 5:10-11'>Jas 5:10-11</a>); both had genuine difficulty in understanding God's ways, but they to varying degrees consciously rebelled against what they did understand; both thus became angry with God (in the Angel), and were reproved by God through being brought to consider the Angel-controlled natural creation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He has stripped me of my glory, and taken the crown from my head-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Stripped me" is s:w. "fell upon" in describing how the troops of Job's enemies fell upon his children and wealth (<a href='B:220 1:17'>Job 1:17</a>). It was God who did this, Job perceives; they were "His troops" (:12). The same word is used of the stripping of God's people of their glory (<a href='B:330 16:39'>Eze 16:39</a>; <a href='B:330 23:26'>Eze 23:26</a>; <a href='B:400 3:3'>Mic 3:3</a>), which only happened because they themselves did not strip themselves of their clothing in repentance (s:w. <a href='B:290 32:11'>Isa 32:11</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:330 26:16'>Eze 26:16</a>). The stripping of Job, which also recalls the stripping of the priest Aaron of his clothes and "crown" [mitre] when his priesthood ended (<a href='B:40 20:26'>Num 20:26</a>; <a href='B:40 20:28'>Num 20:28</a>), was therefore to elicit repentance in him. And this is what was finally achieved at the end of the book. See on <a href='B:220 40:10'>Job 40:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He has broken me down on every side, and I am gone. My hope He has plucked up like a tree-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Originally, Job believed that his "hope" was predicated upon his upright ways (<a href='B:220 4:6'>Job 4:6</a>). But Job through his sufferings comes to feel he now has no "hope" (<a href='B:220 7:6'>Job 7:6</a>; <a href='B:220 14:19'>Job 14:19</a>; <a href='B:220 17:15'>Job 17:15</a>; <a href='B:220 19:10'>Job 19:10</a>). The friends suggest that Job had only the "hope" of the hypocrite, and this "hope" would perish (<a href='B:220 4:6'>Job 4:6</a>; <a href='B:220 8:13'>Job 8:13</a>; <a href='B:220 27:8'>Job 27:8</a>). Job had integrity, and on that basis he thought he had "hope". He suffered, and he lost that "hope", because he assumed that his sufferings meant that he was not in fact righteous. And yet he often reflects that he is righteous and is suffering unjustly. And so he is led to the realization that the "hope" of the righteous is by God's grace and not because of the "integrity of [Job's] ways". Judah in captivity likewise lost their "hope" (<a href='B:330 19:5'>Eze 19:5</a>; <a href='B:330 37:11'>Eze 37:11</a>). But the message of the restoration prophets was that "there is hope in your end" (<a href='B:300 31:17'>Jer 31:17</a>); they were prisoners or exiles in "hope" (<a href='B:450 9:12'>Zec 9:12</a>). And we may get the possible whiff of restoration of hope in Job; for now he compares himself to a tree plucked up, whereas in <a href='B:220 14:7-10'>Job 14:7-10</a> he has said that a tree has hope of sprouting again, but he has no hope at all. Now, he at least sees himself as the tree. These were baby steps towards faith in restoration.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He has also kindled His wrath against me. He counts me among His adversaries-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job feels God's wrath kindled against him (<a href='B:220 19:11'>Job 19:11</a>). The innocent Job&nbsp; experienced the judgments of God's people, against whom God's wrath was kindled (<a href='B:50 11:17'>Deu 11:17</a>; <a href='B:120 23:26'>2Ki 23:26</a>). Significantly, we find Elihu's wrath kindled against both Job and the friends (<a href='B:220 32:2-3'>Job 32:2-3</a>), but the wrath of God was kindled only against the friends (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>). Elihu is therefore not fully reflecting God's position about Job. I have repeatedly demonstrated that the innocent Job was suffering the judgment for the sins of God's people. In the end, this came to full term in the salvation of the friends on account of Job's intercession. God's wrath was not personally against Job, it was against the friends. But Job suffered God's wrath against him, because he was to be the saviour of the friends by offering sacrifice for them and praying for them. This looks forward to the work of the Lord Jesus, the suffering servant based upon Job; experiencing the judgment for our sins, and through the representative nature of His sacrifice, being able to save us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> His troops come on together, build a siege ramp against me, and encamp around my tent-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See on :9. Job represents both the Lord Jesus Christ and Israel. He was representative of both. This is nicely shown by how the language of 19:12-14 is reminiscent of the descriptions of the Roman armies (Christ's armies- <a href='B:470 22:7'>Mat 22:7</a>) surrounding Jerusalem in AD70. There then follows a description of Job's sufferings which has clear links with that of Christ's crucifixion in Psalms 69. "He hath put my brethren far from me (cp. <a href='B:230 69:8'>Psa 69:8</a>), and mine acquaintance are verily estranged from me. My kinsfolk have failed, and my familiar friends have forgotten me". Note how the last phrase links with Christ's description&nbsp; of&nbsp; Judas as "my own familiar friend", implying there may be a connection between the one-time friends of Job, and Judas. Both epitomized the Jewish system, and both were at one stage trusted by Job/Jesus. Other descriptions of Job's sufferings in the language of Psalms 69 include <a href='B:220 30:9'>Job 30:9</a> "Now am I their song, yea, I am their byword" (cp. <a href='B:230 69:12'>Psa 69:12</a>); <a href='B:220 22:11'>Job 22:11</a> "abundance of waters cover thee" (cp. <a href='B:230 69:1-2'>Psa 69:1-2</a>); <a href='B:220 2:11'>Job 2:11</a> the friends came "to mourn with him and to comfort him", although Job said he turned to them for comfort in vain (16:2). The Hebrew in <a href='B:220 2:11'>Job 2:11</a> is identical to that in <a href='B:230 69:20'>Psa 69:20</a>, describing Christ looking in vain for comforters.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He has put my brothers far from me. My acquaintances are wholly estranged from me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The brothers of Job turned against him (:17) because they all considered him "smitten of God" just as the suffering servant was considered (<a href='B:290 53:4'>Isa 53:4</a>); the Lord Jesus likewise had this experience, being initially rejected by his brothers (<a href='B:500 7:5'>Joh 7:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> My relatives have gone away. My familiar friends have forgotten me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This total rejection by everyone was indeed lamentable, but it led to Job turning the more intensely toward God, despite the apparent distance of God from him. And this apparently hopeless situation of being rejected by all his family in <a href='B:220 19:13-16'>Job 19:13-16</a> was reversed at the end when all his relatives again came to him (<a href='B:220 42:11'>Job 42:11</a>). The way they give him a piece of money and an earing appears to be some kind of gratitude for his salvation of them. They thus recognized their guilt and expressed deep gratitude that although they had rejected him, his sufferings and their rejection of him had led to their salvation. For we can deduce from the gift of a piece of money that they feel they have sinned, and he has saved them. So again, his restoration was the restoration of others, the friends and his family who had rejected him. He had born the sufferings for their sins, and thus becomes a type of the Lord Jesus, who suffered the judgments for sin in order to save those who had rejected and abused him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Those who dwell in my house, and my maids, count me for a stranger. I am an alien in their sight-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is quoted in the Messianic <a href='B:230 69:18'>Psa 69:18</a> concerning the Lord's sufferings on the cross.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I call to my servant, and he gives me no answer. I beg him with my mouth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The begging was for bread; see on <a href='B:220 15:23'>Job 15:23</a>. This is how desperately low Job became. "Beg" is the word for 'grace'; see on :21.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> My breath is offensive to my wife. I am loathsome to the children of my own mother-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Loathsome" is not the best translation, the Hebrew word is usually translated to be gracious to. Perhaps the idea is that he asked his brothers for grace, but wasn't afforded it. The usage of the word suggests Job for the first time is thinking about grace, undeserved favour; and this is what he is led to realize at the end when God appears. But this was one of the baby steps towards that. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Even young children despise me. If I arise, they speak against me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job was finally to be the saving hero of his society. Likewise the exiles who had been despised were to be praised by all in the restored Kingdom (<a href='B:290 41:9'>Isa 41:9</a> s:w:). All because Job was the suffering servant, despised and rejected of all and yet finally saviour of those who despised him, just as the Lord Jesus to a far greater extent (<a href='B:290 53:3'>Isa 53:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> All my familiar friends abhor me. They whom I loved have turned against me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This abhorrence of Job by the friends is related to the way they considered mankind to be "abominable and corrupt" (<a href='B:220 15:16'>Job 15:16</a>). "Abhor" is the same word as "abominable". The simple truth is as Job put it- God has a tender desire to man, the work of His hands (<a href='B:220 14:15'>Job 14:15</a>). And whatever we posit about human nature, we say about the Lord Jesus. He fully shared that nature and yet was holy, harmless and undefiled (<a href='B:650 7:26'>Heb 7:26</a>). Man by nature, just standing there as flesh and blood before God, is not "abominable" to Him of himself. It is sin which is the problem; and sin is not inevitable. We must bear full responsibility for our sins and cannot just pass them off as an inevitable function of our humanity. The wrong view of human nature held by the friends affected their view of Job and people in practice. The lower our view of human nature, the more likely we are to despise human beings rather than value them and speak well of them because they are made in the image of God (<a href='B:660 3:9'>Jas 3:9</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>It must be noted that the satan never occurs again, under that name. The real adversary of Job was his "friends"; and in God's final judgment, it is they who are condemned, not 'satan'. It is therefore reasonable to see a connection between the satan and the 'friends' of Job; they too walked to and fro in the earth in order to come to him, as it seems satan did at the beginning. And we pause here for another lesson. The great satan / adversary of Job turned out to be those he thought were his friends in the ecclesia. And so it has been, time and again, in our experience: our sorest trials often come from the words of our brethren. Without underestimating the physical affliction of Job, his real adversary was his brethren. Rather than bemoaning his physical affliction, he commented how his friends had become his satans (<a href='B:220 19:19'>Job 19:19</a>) And so with the Lord Jesus, whom Job so accurately typified. Again, without minimizing the material agony of His flesh, the essential piercing was from His rejection at the hands of those He died for. For other reasons to connect the satan with the friends, see on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> My bones stick to my skin and to my flesh. I have escaped by the skin of my teeth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job was just about hanging on to life, and so he had the hope of restoration. This was the position of the exiles. From their living death they would be given new skin and flesh in revival (<a href='B:330 37:6'>Eze 37:6</a>; <a href='B:330 37:8'>Eze 37:8</a>) after the pattern of Job- if they wished to follow his example of repentance.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Have pity on me, have pity on me, you my friends-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The word for "grace" is used four times in quick succession (:16,17 and twice in :21). Job is now appealing for grace, even if he is deemed guilty. Job for the first time is thinking about grace, undeserved favour; and this is what he is led to realize at the end when God appears.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For the hand of God has touched me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Touch" is the word used by the satan in <a href='B:220 1:11'>Job 1:11</a>, showing again that the hand of the Satan was the hand of God, and Job understood this. The friends insist that "the destroyer" [by which they surely meant an early equivalent to 'the devil' of popular belief today] had touched Job- whereas Job insists that it is God who had destroyed him (<a href='B:220 15:21'>Job 15:21</a> cp. 19:10; 13:21). In some ways the book of Job is a deconstruction of the popular Persian and Canaanite myths about a 'satan' figure. Job, both in the story of his sufferings and his specific words, seeks to demonstrate that the essential issues in life is being "just with God", and not whether or not we are touched by the hand of an evil being; for the hand of God which touched Job (<a href='B:220 19:21'>Job 19:21</a>) is the hand of 'satan' into whom God delivered Job temporarily (<a href='B:220 1:12'>Job 1:12</a>). Job says that the attitude of the friends is wrong- they should be looking into themselves, rather than fantasizing about the action of some unseen evil being they imagined: "Ye should say, Why persecute we him, seeing the root of the matter is found in me?::. know that there is a [personal] judgment"(<a href='B:220 19:28-29'>Job 19:28-29</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Job understood God to be in control in Heaven; he rejects the idea of a cosmic conflict going on ‘up there’ which the friends seem to allude to. More specifically, Job speaks of how God’s hand forms and can pierce the “crooked serpent” and smite any monster (<a href='B:220 26:11-14'>Job 26:11-14</a>). It’s as if Job is mocking the idea that God has let him go into the hands of the cosmic monsters which the friends believed in. For Job so often stresses that it is the “hand of God” which has brought His affliction (<a href='B:220 19:21'>Job 19:21</a>; <a href='B:220 23:2'>Job 23:2</a>). That Divine hand was far greater than any mythical ‘Satan’ figure. The theme of his speech in Job 28 is that Yahweh alone is to be feared throughout the entire cosmos. Nobody else – such as the ‘Satan’ figures alluded to by the friends – needed to be feared.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Why do you persecute me as God, and are not satisfied with my flesh?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The friends ended up playing God. They presumed to judge Job according to their own limited and inaccurate theology, by assuming that he must have sinned in order to receive such terrible trials from God. Zophar claims to have revealed Job’s guilt, and then says that “the heavens”- an ellipsis for “God”- have revealed Job’s guilt (<a href='B:220 20:27'>Job 20:27</a>). Job figured out what was happening when he complained to them: “Why do you hound me as though you were divine?” (<a href='B:220 19:22'>Job 19:22</a> NAB). But something good came out of all this for Job. The way the friends played God set up a kind of dialectic, from which Job came to perceive more powerfully who God really was- and, moreover, how in fact this God would ultimately save him rather than destroy and condemn him, as the friends falsely thought. By ‘dialectic’ I mean that the way the friends presented a false picture and manifestation of God’s judgment led Job to react against it, and thereby come to a true understanding of God’s judgment. Having stated his perception that the friends are indeed playing God (<a href='B:220 19:22'>Job 19:22</a>), Job goes straight on to make a solemn and important statement. The solemnity of it is witnessed by his request that what he was now going to say would be inscribed in rock with the point of a diamond as a permanent record (<a href='B:220 19:24'>Job 19:24</a>). And that solemn statement was that he knew that God would be his vindicator at the last day, that he would “see God”, that he would have a bodily resurrection, and that at that time it would be the friends who would be condemned (<a href='B:220 19:25-29'>Job 19:25-29</a>). This supreme statement of faith, hope and understanding was elicited from Job because of the rejection he suffered from his friends, and the way they so inaccurately and wrongly played God in wrongly condemning him on God’s behalf. Job thus came to long for the judgment seat. There are few believers who have reached that level of intimacy with God- but Job did, thanks to the way his friends so cruelly turned against him. And this is a major lesson we can take from being the victim of slander, misunderstanding and misjudgment by our own brethren.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Oh that my words were now written! Oh that they were inscribed in a book!-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The existence of the book of Job is proof enough that his wish was granted. His request, however, shows baby steps towards realizing that his sufferings can be used for a greater and wider purpose. He was not just suffering for himself. And finally his salvation of his friends and family [possibly leading to the resurrection of his slain children] was realized by him to be the outcome of this sufferings. He, the innocent, had born their sins in his own body, just as the Lord did. Earlier he had offered sacrifice for his children, but this was not enough; a representative sufferer was needed. For now, he is only just beginning to move towards this realization.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> That with an iron pen and lead they were engraved in the rock forever!-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> An "iron pen" is only found again in <a href='B:300 17:1'>Jer 17:1</a>, where Judah's sin is written with an iron pen. The desire for suffering to be remembered was strong amongst the exiles as it was with Job.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But as for me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Given the context, the idea may be that whether or not his suffering achieves anything for others, he is confident of his own salvation at the end.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I know that my Redeemer lives-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God was the redeemer of His people from slavery and captivity (<a href='B:20 6:6'>Exo 6:6</a>; <a href='B:20 15:13'>Exo 15:13</a>). Job felt his sufferings had placed him in some kind of slavery or captivity, from which he needed redemption or 'buying out'. And he believed that God was that redeemer. In these feelings, he becomes the exact representative of the suffering exiles in slavery and captivity. A redeemer from slavery was typically a close relative (<a href='B:30 25:48'>Lev 25:48</a>; s:w. "kinsman" in <a href='B:80 4:8'>Rth 4:8</a>), and this is how Job came to perceive the God whom he felt was so apparently silent and distant. He is a parade example of not being ultimately fazed by the apparent silence of God. The exiles were intended to rejoice that they had a redeemer, again, after the pattern of Job (<a href='B:290 41:14'>Isa 41:14</a>; <a href='B:290 43:1'>Isa 43:1</a>; <a href='B:290 43:14'>Isa 43:14</a>; <a href='B:290 44:6'>Isa 44:6</a>; <a href='B:290 44:22-23'>Isa 44:22-23</a> etc:); and their redemption from Babylon was ultimately to be from death itself (<a href='B:350 13:14'>Hos 13:14</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>In the end-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> AV "latter day" is wrong. There is no Hebrew equivalent here for the idea of a "day". The idea is simply, in the future.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>He will stand upon the earth-</p><h4> "Earth" here is the word for dust. If the land or physical planet earth was in view, then eretz would probably have been used as it is elsewhere in Job. "Stand" doesn't have to imply resurrection; the idea is of being 'raised up', as the Messiah was to be raised up from amongst His brothers (<a href='B:50 18:15'>Deu 18:15</a>; <a href='B:300 23:5'>Jer 23:5</a>). Putting the ideas of the verse together, Job looked for a Messiah-Saviour figure similar to himself to be raised up in the future, who would be the living God manifested in human dust and ashes like Job's (<a href='B:220 7:21'>Job 7:21</a>; <a href='B:220 17:16'>Job 17:16</a>). The Lord Jesus was not God Himself nor did He personally pre-exist, but Job's idea is that this person was to be his representative, of his own dust, but raised up by the living God. His sufferings led him to long for someone exactly like the Lord Jesus- and that longing ultimately came true.</h4>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> After my skin is destroyed-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In <a href='B:220 2:4-6'>Job 2:4-6</a> we have the ‘Satan’ commenting that Job’s flesh and skin need to be harmed; but in <a href='B:220 19:6'>Job 19:6</a>; <a href='B:220 19:26'>Job 19:26</a> we have Job stating his faith that even though God destroys his flesh and skin, yet God shall ultimately save him. See on <a href='B:220 16:14'>Job 16:14</a>. JobThen in my flesh shall I see God-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job understood God to be a personal being, and that in a bodily form he would 'see' Him. Seeing his body was to be destroyed in death, this can only mean he believed in a resurrection of the body. And yet he was to be brought to realize the 'now but not yet' nature of the Kingdom experience; for he came to realize that man can even now "see God" through repentance and acceptance of His great salvation: "I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth Thee" (<a href='B:220 42:5'>Job 42:5</a> AV). See on <a href='B:220 42:5'>Job 42:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> whom I, even I, shall see for myself. My eyes shall see it, and not a stranger’s. My heart is consumed within me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Whatever value Job's sufferings may have had for others, Job was rejoicing in the intensely personal nature of salvation. He whose eyes and body were fading into death would in a corporeal form see God for himself. "And not a stranger's" connects with what we noted on :23; Job had begun to realize that his sufferings were for others' benefit, even though he didn't know who, they were still strangers to him. His point is that notwithstanding that, he was now beginning to grasp the utter wonder of his personal salvation.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>As Job's emphasis on the coming of Messiah and judgment increased, so his concentration on his present sufferings decreased. His heart was consumed within him with desire for that day. 2 Timothy 4 can be regarded as Paul's most mature spiritual statement, written as it was just prior to his death. In <a href='B:620 4:1'>2Ti 4:1</a>; <a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a>, Paul's mind was clearly on the second coming and the certainty of judgment. He realized, in that time of undoubted maturity, that the common characteristic of all the faithful would be that they all loved the appearing of Christ. But do we love the appearing of Christ as Job did? Is it really all we have in life? Is our conscience, our faith in the grace of God, our real belief in the blood of the cross, so deep that we love the idea of the coming of judgment, that we would fain hasten the day of His coming?&nbsp; Job's love of the Lord's coming grew very rapidly. Before, he was too caught up with bitterness about his unspiritual fellow 'believers', effectively justifying himself in the eyes of his ecclesia and his world, full of passive complaints about his own sufferings::. and so he didn't love that day as he later came to. You and I personally will be in God’s Kingdom, with our arms around each other in the rubble of Jerusalem. We will personally be there. We will see Abraham there (<a href='B:490 13:28'>Luk 13:28</a>); as Job says, with our own eyes we will behold our Lord, and not through anyone else’s eyes (<a href='B:220 19:27'>Job 19:27</a>). Our eyes shall behold the King in the beauty which we personally perceive in Him (<a href='B:290 33:17'>Isa 33:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If you say, ‘How we will persecute him!’; because the root of the matter is found in me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Having begun by complaining about the friends and then moved to rejoicing in God's future salvation of him, Job now returns to address the friends. Here and in :29 he appeals for them not to judge him but to repent and prepare for judgment day. This is not at all out of context with the passionate rejoicing in personal salvation he has just expressed in :25-27. The connection is in that he desperately wanted the friends to be there too, to share his wonderful hope. But whilst they continued condemning him, they would unlikely be there; for God has always operated the principle that those who judge / condemn will themselves be condemned (<a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a>), and that is just what they were doing. And Job wants them to stop that and be saved. The situation arose because they considered that Job was totally at fault, and they were intended to persecute him on God's behalf. If they had realized that we are not to judge in the sense of condemning, and left the possible sins between God and Job (see on :4), then they would not have worked themselves into the situation they were now in- thinking it was their duty to persecute Job. This is one of several passages where Job speaks as if the friends were responsible for his physical persecution (cp::22); as if they had brought the calamity which the opening chapters make satan responsible for. See on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>, and note how the satan figure morphs into the friends as the book continues.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> be afraid of the sword, for wrath brings the punishments of the sword, that you may know there is a judgment- I suggest that this expresses a deep concern in Job for the final salvation of the friends; see on :28. He urges them to be aware that the wrath they have could lead to their own punishment by the Divine sword of judgment. And he wants them to realize "there is a judgment". His basic desire to save them is rewarded. God does appear in judgment and condemn the friends, and asks Job to save them by his prayers and sacrifices for them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Then Zophar the Naamathite answered-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job has just uttered a wonderful statement of ecstatic joy at the prospect of his personal, future salvation, and then has gone on to appeal for the friends to repent and stop judging him, so that they might share it (<a href='B:220 19:25-29'>Job 19:25-29</a>). Zophar is so proud and angry that all he can do is lash out at Job, totally ignoring Job's faith, hope and appeal. This is characteristic of how the friends generally refuse to engage with Job's actual words and arguments, because they are so obsessed with their own narrative they have spun about Job. And this refusal leads Zophar to crudeness (:7,15) and basically predicting the violent destruction of Job, with heaven and earth united in witness against his evil (:24-28).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Therefore do my thoughts make me answer, even by reason of my haste that is in me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu opens his response with something similar, leading us to see Elihu as summarizing the arguments of the friends and Job.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I have heard the reproof which seeks to shame me. The spirit of my understanding makes me answer-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The "reproof" was Job's genuine appeal to the friends to stop condemning him because they might thereby miss out on the wonderful personal salvation which Job rejoiced in (<a href='B:220 19:25-29'>Job 19:25-29</a>). To be told 'You are too judgmental' made Zophar even more judgmental and angry.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Don’t you know this from old time, since man was placed on earth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> We the audience become almost bored by the way the friends keep on claiming that ancient sage wisdom is the source of truth, and any new revelation must be wrong just because it is new. But this sense of weariness at their repetition is intentional. We are led to realize that indeed, dialogue cannot progress if the participants simply return to the same old arguments all the time and refuse to engage with the responses.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> that the triumphing of the wicked is short, the joy of the godless but for a moment?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job's relatively brief period of prosperity is interpreted as meaning that Job was "wicked::. Godless". Again we see how the wrong theology (in this case, that suffering implied personal sin) led to a headlong dive into ever more false assumptions, and condemning an upright man.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Though his height mount up to the heavens, and his head reach to the clouds-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This was of special relevance to the captives in Babylon. These words are used of Babylon's king who was to fall (<a href='B:340 4:22'>Dan 4:22</a>), an event the restoration prophets associate with Israel's restoration. Again, the friends state certain truths which are even quoted in later scripture, but they hold those truths within the wrong frames of reference when it comes to Job. And this is the problem with 'truth' about a matter being held isolated from a wider framework, and without connection to the things of the spirit. For God seeks worshippers in "spirit and truth". See on :9.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> yet he shall perish forever like his own dung. Those who have seen him shall say, ‘Where is he?’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Bildad's anger is such that he becomes crude in his vicious desire to curse Job. We recall that just shortly before, he had been sitting in silence with Job seeking to comfort him as a friend and fellow worshipper. This is how quickly relationships can go wrong, and false suppositions and lack of engagement with a person as an individual can lead to them going down a totally different track.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He shall fly away as a dream, and shall not be found. Yes, he shall be chased away like a vision of the night-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Bildad is dogmatic that after Job's death, there can be no restoration, and he bitterly stresses this in the following verses. Later events were to show him how wrong he was. And he then is thereby presented as a warning to the exiles who tended to believe that restoration to the land of promise was impossible for them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The eye which saw him shall see him no more, neither shall his place any more see him-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again, this is a true enough picture of death, and shows the error of all primitive fears of ghosts of the dead haunting their previous living places, reincarnation etc. But that truth is misused by Bildad and is seen without the wider context of God's power to restore and resurrect. See on :6.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> His children shall seek the favour of the poor. His hands shall give back his wealth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job's wealth had been taken from him by Temanite invaders, from the same area as Eliphaz the Temanite. His hands didn't give it back. This is another hint that the Satan figure morphs with the friends, and they were actually the ones behind the stealing of Job's wealth, on the basis that they believed that as a sinner, it ought to be taken from him. See on :15.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> His bones are full of his youth, but youth shall lie down with him in the dust-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> AV "full of the sins of his youth". Job has earlier admitted the possibility that he had sinned in youth, so perhaps he had indeed sinned as a young man. Seeing they could see nothing apparently sinful in Job at that time, they concluded he must have sinned earlier, or was sinning in a way hidden from them. They were desperate to impute sin, finding possible fault in everything; whereas the way of love and of the spirit is to seek to impute righteousness as God does to us, and as He does to Job at the end. This of itself was a huge rebuke to how the friends had done just the opposite.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Though wickedness is sweet in his mouth, though he hide it under his tongue-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :11, the implication is that although they had to admit there was no sin in Job's current lifestyle, they concluded that his sufferings meant he had either sinned in youth, or was hiding his current sins from them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> though he spare it, and will not let it go, but keep it still within his mouth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is that Job has sinned secretly and will not let that sin go but savours it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> yet his food in his bowels is churned. It is cobra venom within him-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :6, there is truth in these statements, in this case, that sin becomes its own punishment; the sin secretly kept in the mouth and enjoyed as a tasty morsel, turns into the venom of judgment when swallowed. But it is truth without context, just as a Bible text without context is a pretext::. for various wrong thinking and behaviour.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He has swallowed down riches, and he shall vomit them up again. God will cast them out of his belly-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> It was in fact Israel who had taken riches but not by right, and would vomit them up again (<a href='B:300 17:11'>Jer 17:11</a>). Job had not done this, but was treated and judged as if he had. Again we see how he was suffering as an innocent representative of his peoples' sins. If indeed it was the friends who had seized Job's wealth wrongfully (see on :10), then Job becomes so powerfully their saviour at the end. He suffered the judgments for what they had done, although he had not done those things; and so he bore their sins. Through his prayer and offering for them at the end, he thereby saved them. He was suffering for the salvation of his friends, although at the time it seems he didn't realize it. The Lord Jesus did the same to a far greater extent, but He learned the lesson of Job and was aware that His sufferings were for our salvation. See on :16,18; <a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He shall suck cobra venom. The viper’s tongue shall kill him-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :15, this was the judgment of Israel in their apostasy (<a href='B:50 32:32-33'>Deu 32:32-33</a>; <a href='B:290 59:16'>Isa 59:16</a>; <a href='B:300 8:14'>Jer 8:14</a>; <a href='B:300 9:15'>Jer 9:15</a>; <a href='B:300 23:15'>Jer 23:15</a>; <a href='B:310 3:5'>Lam 3:5</a>). Like the Lord Jesus, who also drunk gall on the cross (s:w. "venom"; <a href='B:230 69:21'>Psa 69:21</a>), Job was suffering the judgment for others' sins, so that he might finally save them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He shall not look at the rivers, the flowing streams of honey and butter-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Honey and butter were the blessings for obedience to the covenant; Job was suffering as if he had been disobedient to the covenant, just as the Lord did.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> That for which he laboured he shall restore, and shall not swallow it down. According to the substance that he has gotten, he shall not rejoice-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Bildad was clearly jealous of Job's wealth, adopting the thinking of the Satan who suggested these things originally. But he justifies this by saying that Job has taken his wealth from others, and the Bedouin bands who had stolen it were in fact just taking back what Job had taken wrongfully from them. If indeed it was the friends who had seized Job's wealth wrongfully (see on :10), then all Bildad is saying becomes true for him. And he is therefore only to be saved by Job, the innocent, bearing the judgments for his sins.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For he has oppressed and forsaken the poor. He has violently taken away a house, and he shall not build it up-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Bildad assumes Job must have done something like this, to deserve his sufferings. Job engages with what Bildad says and denies it (<a href='B:220 29:12'>Job 29:12</a>; <a href='B:220 31:17'>Job 31:17</a>). Again we note that Job engages with the actual words of the friends, whereas they tend to attack him in terms of the straw man image of him they had built up in their minds, ignoring him as a person and the actual words he says. This is typical of how dialogue goes wrong.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Because he knew no quietness within him, he shall not save anything of that in which he delights-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> AV "quietness in his belly". Bildad is back to his crude comparison of Job's sin and wealth with tasty things he had secretly eaten (:15) which now swallowed, were working within his stomach to produce death by his bowels excreting them all.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> There was nothing left that he didn’t devour, therefore his prosperity shall not endure-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The satan had begun by saying that God had given Job wealth, but if that wealth was taken away, he would curse God. The satan then morphs into the friends, the "sons of God" present in the prologue, and they continue the role of the satan as the story progresses. But Zophar has now moved beyond the original suspicion. He now paints Job as a man who had not so much been given wealth by God, but had greedily devoured the wealth of others and was now paying the price, and justice was making him relinquish all his ill gotten wealth. Again we see a parade example of how dialogue breaks down. An initial suspicion (however legitimate the suspicion) becomes exaggerated into a totally different accusation, which has no basis in reality and is outright slander, however confidently presented.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In the fullness of his sufficiency, distress shall overtake him. The hand of each one who is in misery shall come on him-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Zophar is reasoning that those who had been reduced to misery by Job could now legitimately put their hand upon him. In the prologue, Job is placed in the hand of the satan, with the reminder that this hand is ultimately God's hand. Zophar now defines that "hand" as the hand of those whom Job has supposedly grabbed wealth from and reduced to misery. Again we have the suspicion that some of the trials were brought upon Job by the friends, who reasoned themselves into the assumption that they were the ones from whom Job had taken wealth. This is the classical outworking of envy and jealousy; 'you are wealthy::. you have more than me::. I am poorer than you::. because::. you took my wealth from me and added it to your own!'.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> When he is about to fill his belly, God will cast the fierceness of His wrath upon him. It will rain on him while he is eating-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> A clear reference to how "the fire of God" had consumed Job's wealth and children, at the very apex of his prosperity. God casting wrath through His Divinely controlled "angels of evil" is the very phrase used of His judgment of His sinful people (<a href='B:230 78:49'>Psa 78:49</a>; <a href='B:330 7:3'>Eze 7:3</a>). We noted the connection between the Satan and such "angels of evil" on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>. Again, Job is presented is experiencing the judgments of God' sinful people, whilst personally innocent.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He shall flee from the iron weapon. The bronze arrow shall strike him through-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Zophar claims that Job was going to flee from the arrow of Divine judgment, but would all the same be struck through by it (<a href='B:220 20:24-25'>Job 20:24-25</a>). God's response was that His creatures didn't flee from His arrows (s:w. <a href='B:220 41:28'>Job 41:28</a>). Neither did Job flee from God; he uses the same term to describe how the wicked vainly tried to flee from God (<a href='B:220 27:22'>Job 27:22</a>). He was in harmony with the natural creation. Zophar was wrong. Job didn't flee from God but quite the opposite- he keeps begging God to reveal Himself, and He does so at the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He draws it forth, and it comes out of his body. Yes, the glittering point comes out of his liver-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Zophar is gloating in the judgment that he was sure would come upon Job. We marvel at how quickly he has transformed his position from the man who came and sat down with Job seven days in silence, perhaps sincerely seeking to comfort Job in his affliction. But now by this point, the friends have reasoned themselves into a position where they not only think Job's sufferings are legitimate and deserved, but gloat at the prospect of his further and final sufferings, with his liver pierced by God's arrows, and the arrow coming out of the other side of his body. This is how far the relationship broke down, all because of a refusal to understand Job as a person and engage with what he was actually saying and who he really was.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Terrors are upon him-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Terrors" are again the judgment of God upon an apostate Israel, whom Job was suffering for whilst innocent, after the pattern of the later Lord Jesus (<a href='B:50 32:25'>Deu 32:25</a> s:w:). Those "terrors" were likely understood by the friends as some kind of demonic beings. God deconstructs this by explaining that the great beasts He has created likewise were 'terrible' (s:w. "terrors"). But the simple point was that He had created them and was totally in control (s:w. <a href='B:220 39:20'>Job 39:20</a>; <a href='B:220 41:14'>Job 41:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> All darkness is laid up for his treasures. An unfanned fire shall devour him. It shall consume that which is left in his tent-</p><h4> This implies Job still had some wealth concealed in his tent. But that seems unlikely, seeing he was literally begging for bread (see on <a href='B:220 15:23'>Job 15:23</a>) and squatting in deserted houses (see on <a href='B:220 15:28'>Job 15:28</a>). Again the friends are dogmatically asserting what they had previously begun by surmising. This again is how relationships go wrong when there is no actual engagement with what the person really is saying and their actual location in reality.</h4>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The heavens shall reveal his iniquity. The earth shall rise up against him-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The friends became assured that God, "the heavens", knew Job was a sinner, and "earth" would rise up against Job in harmony with "heaven". Again, the dialogue broke down because of their assumptions, which they came to assume were supported by God, and therefore their reasoning went full circle- they, as the "earth", were rising up against Job in harmony with "heaven".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The increase of his house shall depart. They shall rush away in the day of His wrath-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Alluding to the destruction of Job's house / family. The friends have moved on from the original concern of the satan, who morphs into them. The initial question was whether Job only believed in God because God had materially blessed him. And so God gave all Job had into the hand of the 'satan'. The removal of Job's wealth was never intended to be an outcome of God's wrath. Rather was it part of an experiment, if you like, to teach the satan and the friends something. But they had moved far further from that position, and were talking in terms of Divine wrath and judgment against Job. This moving on from original questions and concerns about an individual is exactly what we see in relationship breakdown today. The original issues are unrecognizable compared to the accusations which the original issues morph into.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is the portion of a wicked man from God, the heritage appointed to him by God- As explained on :28, the removal of Job's wealth was in order to test Job and reveal him to God and man. It was not a judgment of a wicked man; the prologue is at pains to point out that Job was "perfect" (<a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>) and not a "wicked man".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Then Job answered-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I have consistently noted how Job actually engages with the words of the friends, whereas they pay little attention to his words and attack him in terms of the straw man they have created. See on :2.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Listen diligently to my speech. Let this be your consolation-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :1, Job engages with what the friends have said, whereas they attack him in terms of vague generalities without such specific engagement with his words. In this chapter he specifically answers what Zophar has said in Job 20. He argues that (contrary to what Zophar has just claimed in the previous speech) in fact the wicked are rarely cut down in this life, instead they prosper (:17,18). And their children often don't suffer for the sins of the parents but instead profit from them (:19-21).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Allow me, and I also will speak; after I have spoken, mock on-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This may be an invitation to them to hear what he has actually said and only then "mock on", rather than continually attacking the straw man image of him they had created in their minds (see on :1,2). "Mock" is the word for "scorn" used of the sufferings of the Lord Jesus, the suffering servant based upon Job (<a href='B:230 22:7'>Psa 22:7</a>). The application to Hezekiah's time is that the people of Judah were likewise scorned by their enemies (<a href='B:290 37:22'>Isa 37:22</a>); and to the exiles in that they too were mocked by the opponents to the rebuilding by men who came from the same ethnic background as the three friends (s:w. <a href='B:160 2:19'>Neh 2:19</a>; <a href='B:160 4:1'>Neh 4:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As for me, is my complaint to man? Why shouldn’t I be impatient?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job fell into the trap of thinking that his terrible situation somehow allowed him to speak whatever words came into his head. Job felt he hadn’t been ‘fed’ and so he was entitled to “bray” and “low” over his misfortune (<a href='B:220 6:5'>Job 6:5</a>). Because of the weight of his sufferings, he thereby justified the fact that "Therefore have my words been rash (<a href='B:220 6:3'>Job 6:3</a>). Likewise “Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit” (<a href='B:220 7:11'>Job 7:11</a>). “I will give free course to my complaint. I will speak in the bitterness of my soul” (<a href='B:220 10:1'>Job 10:1</a> RV). Zophar criticizes Job being “full of talk” and speaking “the multitude of words”, “for thou sayest, my doctrine is pure” (<a href='B:220 11:1-4'>Job 11:1-4</a>)- as if Job felt that because he held true doctrine he was justified in pouring out words as he did. “Why should I not be impatient?” (<a href='B:220 21:4'>Job 21:4</a> RV). “Today is my complaint bitter. My stroke is heavier than my groaning” (<a href='B:220 23:2'>Job 23:2</a>)- i:e. his complaining was due to his sufferings. “If I hold my peace, I shall give up the spirit” (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a> RVmg:). Job felt that the situation he was in forced him to use the words he did, and certainly justified it [we may well have used this reasoning ourselves when justifying the use of bad language]. But in the end, Elihu on God’s behalf rebuked him for his wrong words. And Job himself recognized: “I am vile. I will lay mine hand upon my mouth” in regret of his words (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>). “Wherefore I loathe my words and repent” (<a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a> RVmg:). He realized his mistake: he had thought that the situation justified his words. Now he hung his head and admitted that there was no justification for speaking in the way he had. Especially in the matter of the tongue, we can so easily justify ourselves; ‘I only said / did it [or didn’t do it] because</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>’. And it is all so child-like. Once we leave off all attempts at self-justification, we will face up to our sins.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Look at me, and be astonished. Lay your hand on your mouth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> When Job finally lays his hand upon his own mouth (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>), he is only doing what he had earlier told the friends to do in recognition of their folly (<a href='B:220 13:5'>Job 13:5</a>; <a href='B:220 21:5'>Job 21:5</a>). Through the pain and irritation of their speeches, Job came to value and appreciate the need for silence before God. But it was only when personally confronted by God at the end that he realizes that he too had spoken too much and he repents of that in silence.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> When I remember, I am troubled. Horror takes hold of my flesh-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This horror was at the thought that although the wicked were not judged in this life, they would face a terrible future condemnation, and despite his own desperate illness and situation, he looked out of himself as did the Lord on the way to the cross, to deeply mourn the future judgment of the wicked at the last day. Here we have a wonderful window onto Job's basic loving, saving concern for others. No wonder he was the one chosen to be their representative saviour, suffering the judgment of their sins, and then invited to pray and sacrifice to bring about the salvation of the friends and his own family who had rejected him. If we too have a heart that bleeds for the condemnation of others, we will be used to save them. This is the prime qualification for all evangelism. It is this which God will use, rather than having apparently persuasive technique and evangelism materials.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Why do the wicked live, become old, yes, and grow mighty in power?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The answer to this question is what had made Job shudder in :6. The answer is that they will come to their judgment at the last day, as they clearly don't face it in this life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Their child is established with them in their sight, their offspring before their eyes-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In contrast to Job's children who were dead. The point is that Job is answering Zophar's claims that the wicked are punished through the suffering of their children, but Job is saying that this simply doesn't correspond to observable reality. Note that he engages with the words of the friends, whereas they largely ignore his words. See on See on :1,2,17.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Their houses are safe from fear, neither is the rod of God upon them-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Their houses compare with Job's, which fell down as a result of the Angel-satan whirlwind. Earlier in <a href='B:220 9:34'>Job 9:34</a> Job pleaded: "Let Him take His rod away from me, and let not His fear terrify me". He felt he was suffering the punishment of the wicked in this life, and therefore he was drawn towards the conclusion that he would not therefore suffer it at the last day- but rather then be saved.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Their bulls breed without fail. Their cows calve, and don’t miscarry-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Miscarriage was understood as a Divine curse (s:w. <a href='B:10 31:38'>Gen 31:38</a>; <a href='B:300 15:7'>Jer 15:7</a>; <a href='B:350 9:14'>Hos 9:14</a>; <a href='B:460 3:11'>Mal 3:11</a>). It had come upon Job, but apparently not upon "the wicked". But the references just quoted in the prophets show that it was to come upon the apostate people of God. And this is Job's point. Judgment doesn't immediately come, but it will. And he was suffering those judgments because he was representative of sinners whilst himself innocent, in the spirit of the future Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They send forth their little ones like a flock. Their children dance-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again Job is answering Zophar's claim that the children of the wicked are punished, just as Job's children had been. But as noted on :1,2,8,17, Job is saying that this is just not true according to observed reality. There is a longer term Divine game plan here and Job is ever more clearly seeing it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They sing to the tambourine and harp, and rejoice at the sound of the pipe-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is the language of partying. Job's children had partied regularly like this, and the fire of God had consumed them in judgment. This could be a tacit recognition from Job that his children had indeed sinned, his sin offerings for them had not of themselves been efficacious, his children had been slain "in an instant" (:13); but there still remained the mystery, that the same sin leads to immediate judgment for some, but not for others. He could even be implying that because his children had suffered it in this life, there would be future hope for their salvation. And this connects with the possibility that his slain children were resurrected, thanks to his being their sin bearer in his own body, when all things in his life are restored at the end. See on <a href='B:220 42:13'>Job 42:13</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They spend their days in prosperity. In an instant they go down to Sheol-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is that they die an easy, quick and painless death. Job was dying a hard and slow death, inching ever closer to sheol rather than going there "in an instant".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They tell God, ‘Depart from us, for we don’t want to know about Your ways-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again as noted on :12, Job may be admitting that his children had indeed cursed God in their hearts, renouncing Him (<a href='B:220 1:5'>Job 1:5</a>). For he seems to be saying that his children had been judged in this life for their sins, but those who did the same as they had but who avoided such judgment would be judged and condemned at the last day. There may be in <a href='B:610 5:24'>1Ti 5:24</a> the idea that if we are judged for our sins in this life, we shall not be in the last day; and the reverse is true. This again could support the possibility discussed on <a href='B:220 42:3'>Job 42:3</a> that Job's slain children were resurrected when he was restored. See on :23. His sin offerings for them couldn't achieve this of themselves; but his representative suffering for them could. And this of course looks ahead to the work of the Lord Jesus, saving those whom Mosaic sacrifices of themselves couldn't save.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> What is the Almighty, that we should serve Him? What profit should we have, if we pray to Him?’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Note the parallel between praying to God and serving Him. Those who feel incapacitate to physically serve God can take comfort from the fact that the Bible presents prayer as serving God. Again as noted on :14, Job may be admitting that his children had indeed cursed God in their hearts, renouncing Him (<a href='B:220 1:5'>Job 1:5</a>). These words are misquoted by Elihu in <a href='B:220 35:3'>Job 35:3</a> as if Job has said this about himself and about there being no profit in serving or praying to God. Yet Elihu claims to speak on God's behalf. We can however understand Elihu as merely reiterating the position of the friends, as a kind of summary at the end of their dialogues; and at the same time giving a foretaste of the speeches of God which are to come. He therefore serves as a literary device in the story, particularly required for an illiterate audience hearing or viewing the drama presented, and having inevitably forgotten the details of all the positions previously presented.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The idols and the Gentile nations amongst whom the exiles lived would not "profit" them (<a href='B:290 30:5-6'>Isa 30:5-6</a>; <a href='B:290 44:9-10'>Isa 44:9-10</a>); but as the book of Esther makes clear, they were profiting well, apparently, from remaining amongst them. But the only real "profit" would be if they quit all that and returned to Zion (<a href='B:290 48:17'>Isa 48:17</a> s:w:). But they saw no "profit" in being forgiven and restored as God's people (s:w. <a href='B:220 35:3'>Job 35:3</a>). Rather they considered the temporal "profit" of life in Babylon as far greater profit.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, their prosperity is not in their hand. The counsel of the wicked is far from me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea may be as GNB "They claim they succeed by their own strength, but their way of thinking I can't accept". Job is saying that citing the various calamities of the wicked, as Zophar has just done, is not relevant to him personally as he doesn't act and think as the wicked to.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> How often is it that the lamp of the wicked is put out, that their calamity comes on them, that God distributes sorrows to them in His anger?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The answer of course is intended to be 'Not often!'. He argues (contrary to what Zophar has just claimed in the previous speech) that in fact the wicked are rarely cut down in this life, instead they prosper (:17,18). And their children often don't suffer for the sins of the parents but instead profit from them (:19-21). We again must note how Job actually engages with the words of the friends, whereas they increasingly ignore his words and attack the image of "Job" which they have falsely created in their own minds. See on :1,2,8.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> How often is it that they are as stubble before the wind, as chaff that the storm carries away?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is the language of the latter day destruction of the wicked at judgment day (<a href='B:290 17:13'>Isa 17:13</a>; <a href='B:340 2:35'>Dan 2:35</a>). Job is saying that they do not have their judgment in this life, unlike his sinful children who did have it in this life; but they will be judged at the last day. He is driven towards his understanding of the last day by his own experience of injustice and the very differing judgment which sinners experience. All our struggles with the injustice of life today are designed to bring us to a similar focus- upon the return of the Lord Jesus as the just judge, and the establishment of eternal justice.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> You say, ‘God lays up his iniquity for his children’. Let him recompense it to himself, that he may know it-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> GNB "You claim God punishes a child for the sins of his father. No! Let God punish the sinners themselves; let him show that he does it because of their sins". This was particularly relevant to the exiles, who considered they were unjustly suffering for their fathers' sins, and whose arguments are likewise challenged in Ezekiel 18. And in Job's immediate context, he is tacitly admitting that his children had indeed sinned and been punished- but not for his sins, but for their own sins, which he clearly was not involved in.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Let his own eyes see his destruction. Let him drink of the wrath of the Almighty-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> GNB "Let sinners bear their own punishment; let them feel the wrath of Almighty God". See on :19.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For what does he care for his house after him, when the number of his months is cut off?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is that in fact the wickedness of the sinner is often not visited upon their children. Job argues (contrary to what Zophar has just claimed in the previous speech) that in fact the wicked are rarely cut down in this life, instead they prosper (:17,18). And their children often don't suffer for the sins of the parents but instead profit from them (:19-21). We again must note how Job actually engages with the words of the friends, whereas they increasingly ignore his words and attack the image of "Job" which they have falsely created in their own minds. See on :1,2.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Shall any teach God knowledge, since He judges those who are high?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Even those in high places" (GNB). The three friends have similarities with the Jewish system. When Job speaks of "the wicked" he is digging at the friends, as they do at him when they speak of the wicked. Thus he implies here that they were trying to "teach God knowledge" - alluded to in <a href='B:520 11:34'>Rom 11:34</a> and <a href='B:530 2:16'>1Co 2:16</a>, where the Jews are mocked for thinking they can instruct God and be "His counsellor", thus linking the friends with the Jews. As Job suffered the judgments for their sins and finally redeemed them, so the Lord Jesus did for Israel.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> One dies in his full strength, being wholly at ease and quiet-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is that "one sinner" has an easy death, whereas others have Divine judgment in this life (:25). Job has earlier accused the friends of those being "at ease" (s:w. <a href='B:220 12:5'>Job 12:5</a>). He sees them as therefore being liable to future judgment, seeing they were not receiving judgment in this life. Job had earlier lived a "quiet" life (s:w. <a href='B:220 16:12'>Job 16:12</a>). But now that had been interrupted; he was experiencing judgment now, so that he would not face it in the last day. And earlier in this chapter it seems that he considered that this is what his sinful children had experienced when God slew them, paving the way for the idea that in fact they were resurrected thanks to his restoration- see on <a href='B:220 42:3'>Job 42:3</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> His pails are full of milk. The marrow of his bones is moistened-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job's bones are often mentioned as suffering; he was receiving judgment in this life so he didn't have to face it at the last day (as in <a href='B:610 5:24'>1Ti 5:24</a>). The satan had been given specific authority to see Job's bones suffer (<a href='B:220 2:5'>Job 2:5</a>). His suffering of the condemnation of the wicked, whose bones were to suffer, was allowed on the specific understanding that God considered him righteous and not a sinner. This had been completely and willfully forgotten by the friends, who were the "sons of God" party to those initial discussions with God in the prologue.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Another dies in bitterness of soul, and never tastes of good-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Bitterness of soul" is the very phrase Job uses about himself (<a href='B:220 3:20'>Job 3:20</a>; <a href='B:220 7:11'>Job 7:11</a>; <a href='B:220 10:1'>Job 10:1</a>). He clearly has himself in view. His idea is that some get their judgment in this life, as he was; and he contrasts himself with those like the friends who don't have their judgment now, but shall have it in the last day.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They lie down alike in the dust. The worm covers them-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The implication of Job's argument, as noted on :6, is that indeed all experience death, but the difference will be at the future judgment. Job's belief in the mortality of man and death as an unconscious state is hereby revealed, and it likely stood in contrast to the majority views of the time.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, I know your thoughts, the devices with which you would wrong me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The friends are accused of 'wronging' Job by wicked "devices"; of actually planning wrong against him. 'Wronging' is the same word as "shake off" in <a href='B:220 15:33'>Job 15:33</a>. Eliphaz was so convinced that God would do Job 'wrong' that he developed to the point of actually devising to do wrong to Job, thus confirming the sense that the friends became the 'Satan' figure and actually did the evil to Job which he initially wanted done.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For you say, ‘Where is the house of the prince? Where is the tent in which the wicked lived?’-</p><h4> "The [wicked] prince" clearly refers to Job. The friends have not exactly aid these words, but Job as it were places the implication of their positions in inverted commas, as if they had really said this in so many words- when actually they had only implied it. So again we see how dialogue goes so wrong, when parties become sure that the implication of others' positions is what they have actually said- when they haven't. The friends do the same to Job, but we can say that Job does so more accurately and fairly than they do to him.</h4>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Haven’t you asked wayfaring men? Don’t you know their evidences-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The friends constantly appeal to the wisdom of the sages and of previous generations. Job now appeals to the general knowledge and observations of the ordinary people, the "wayfaring men". He is saying that observed reality simply differs to what the sages are saying.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> that the evil man is reserved to the day of calamity, that they are led forth to the day of wrath?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job is arguing that the way the wicked prosper means that they must face a future "day of wrath", and that this has been figured out by ordinary "wayfaring" people (:29) because it is so obvious. God confirms this view, by saying that He has "reserved" final judgment, although He has created the things He will use in that judgment and "reserved" them until then (<a href='B:220 38:23'>Job 38:23</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who shall declare his way to his face? Who shall repay him what he has done?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> GNB "There is no one to accuse the wicked or pay them back for all they have done". The answer of course is that there is no such ultimate judgment or moral ombudsman in this life. Yet justice and judgment must be done- and there must therefore be a future day of judgment when God shall do this. Job is driven relentlessly towards a focus upon the last day, just as we are by our experiences of injustice. And the appearance of God in judgment at the end is a vindication of Job's desire.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Yet he will be carried to the grave. Men shall keep watch over the tomb-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The wicked are carried to peaceful graves without having faced judgment (:31). But therefore, the very peacefulness of their graves is a strong argument for belief in a future day of judgment, and their resurrection to face it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The clods of the valley shall be sweet to him. All men shall draw after him, as there were innumerable before him-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :32, the apparent sweetness of the death and burial of the wicked, going on generation after generation, is a powerful argument that in fact there must be a day of resurrection to judgment yet to come. Or we can read with GNB "Thousands join the funeral procession, and even the earth lies gently on their bodies".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> So how can you comfort me with nonsense, because in your answers there remains only falsehood?- LXX "I have no rest from your molestation". If this reading is correct, we have more evidence that the friends were in fact the Satan, bringing the judgments upon Job. The friends initially came to "comfort" Job. But their refusal to engage with him as a person and his actual situation and words (see on :1,2) leads them to do the very opposite. And so we see how initially well meaning dialogue turns to be destructive and the reverse of "comfort". The restoration prophets announced "Comfort" to God's people who were feeling and suffering as Job (<a href='B:290 40:1'>Isa 40:1</a>; <a href='B:290 66:13'>Isa 66:13</a>); Job's lack of comforters thereby makes him representative of the exiles.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Much of this speech is utterly irrelevant to what Job has just said. Eliphaz assumes Job is protesting his righteousness, as noted on <a href='B:220 21:1-2'>Job 21:1-2</a>, the friends attack a straw man image they have built up of Job rather than engaging with that he has actually said. And they repeatedly forget the context of Job as explained by God in the prologue- that Job is a righteous man, and his sufferings are not judgment for sin, but rather to persuade the satan of his doubts. And the satan morphs into the friends after the end of Job 2. Eliphaz here does later mention some of Job's words (:15-20), but he misrepresents them to fit his own agenda. This again is a parade example of how dialogue breaks down and becomes more than unhelpful.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Can a man be profitable to God? Surely he who is wise is profitable to himself-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> These words are applied by Elihu to Job in <a href='B:220 35:3'>Job 35:3</a>. It seems an obvious and unkindly wilful misquotation- until we accept the viewpoint that Elihu is not so much speaking for himself, as summarizing for the audience the arguments presented so far, with Elihu playing the role of the friends in summarizing the argument so far. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that you are righteous? Or does it benefit Him, that you make your ways perfect?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Eliphaz is now propelled by his obsession against Job to say things about God which are wildly untrue, and is specifically rebuked above the other friends for doing this at the end (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>). I would surmise that his words of <a href='B:220 22:3'>Job 22:3</a> are specifically in view. For this is a complete denial of all that God reveals Himself to be. Job rightly understood that God as human creator has a tender desire to the work of His hands (see on <a href='B:220 14:15'>Job 14:15</a>). But Eliphaz speaks as if God has no interest nor feeling towards those who are righteous, so far above caring is He. And this could not be a more serious misrepresentation of the God who is thrilled by every move a man makes towards Him. See on :12.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Is it for your piety that He reproves you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is sarcasm. And this is the point where we know that dialogue is now no longer dialogue. Eliphaz reached this low point because he is simply ignoring all Job has said in the previous speech, and has developed his own idea that Job's sufferings are Divine reproof- when the prologue makes clear that they were for the benefit of the satan and the "sons of God", the friends party to the original discussion about Job.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>That He enters with you into judgment?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The prologue had made it clear to the "sons of God", the friends, that Job was seen by God as a righteous man. His sufferings were not Divine judgment, but a means through which to teach the friends.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Isn’t your wickedness great? Neither is there any end to your iniquities-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is in total defiance of the opening explanation in the prologue that Job was not seen as wicked before God. But just as people today lose their basis in Biblical principle and statement and run headlong into assumptions which lead to breakdown of interpersonal relationships, so Eliphaz has become convinced that Job is a sinner because he is suffering. The greatness of his sufferings was in order to persuade the friends / satan about Job's righteousness; but instead they are so fixated on the idea that sin and judgment are proportional that they assume that the great sufferings imply great wickedness.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For you have taken pledges from your brother for nothing, and stripped the naked of their clothing-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Eliphaz is so convinced that Job is suffering because he sinned that he now dogmatically states Job's sins in details. What began as internal speculation within him, he now comes out with as fact. And we see this happening all the time in broken relationships. He assumes that the stripping of Job of his clothing in <a href='B:220 19:9'>Job 19:9</a> must have been because Job had stripped others of their clothing. The same word is used of the stripping of God's people of their glory (<a href='B:330 16:39'>Eze 16:39</a>; <a href='B:330 23:26'>Eze 23:26</a>; <a href='B:400 3:3'>Mic 3:3</a>), which only happened because they themselves did not strip themselves of their clothing in repentance (s:w. <a href='B:290 32:11'>Isa 32:11</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:330 26:16'>Eze 26:16</a>). The stripping of Job, which also recalls the stripping of the priest Aaron of his clothes and "crown" [mitre[ when his priesthood ended (<a href='B:40 20:26'>Num 20:26</a>; <a href='B:40 20:28'>Num 20:28</a>), was therefore to elicit repentance in him. And this is what was finally achieved at the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> You haven’t given water to the weary to drink, and you have withheld bread from the hungry-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See on :6. The focus of the Lord Jesus upon the positive is shown by the way the Lord quotes <a href='B:220 22:7'>Job 22:7</a> in the parable of the sheep and goats. These words are part of Eliphaz’s erroneous allegations against Job- for Job was a perfect man, and not guilty on these counts. Yet the Lord extracts elements of truth from those wrong words, rather than just contemptuously ignoring them. Likewise <a href='B:220 22:25'>Job 22:25</a> speaks of God being our “treasure</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> our precious silver” (RV). Surely the Lord had this in mind when saying that our treasure must be laid up “in heaven”, i:e. with God (for He often uses ‘Heaven’ for ‘God’). And James follows suite by approvingly quoting <a href='B:220 22:29'>Job 22:29</a> about the lifting up of the humble (<a href='B:660 4:6'>Jas 4:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But as for the mighty man, he had the earth from you. The honourable man, he lived in it-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The accusation is that Job had given land to the mighty and famous in return for favours from them, whereas he had despised the poor (:7,9). We must recall that Job was "perfect" before God and was being tested for the sake of the education of the friends. They as the "sons of God" of <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a> were party to those discussions. But now Eliphaz is so persuaded of his pet theory that Job's sufferings are for his sins, that he feels he can speculate about what those things were. And that allowance of himself to speculate now leads him to dogmatically make false accusation; dialogue is now no longer dialogue but a feeding frenzy of hatred and self-justification. We too can so easily descend this path.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> You have sent widows away empty, and the arms of the fatherless you have broken-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As explained on :8, Eliphaz began by nursing a pet theory: Job was suffering because he had sinned, and God's word of explanation about why Job was now to suffer was ignored. This led to internal speculation about Job's possible sins; and now to utterly dogmatic assertion of that which was untrue. The path to every slander is similar.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Therefore snares are around you. Sudden fear troubles you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Now Eliphaz quotes some of Job's words describing his lamentable state. But still, as noted on :1, Eliphaz isn't engaging with Job's words and arguments. He is merely quoting Job's laments and descriptions of his illness, and gloating that "therefore", because of Job's sins, these things have happened. This is not engagement with the words and arguements of another.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> or darkness, so that you can not see, and floods of waters cover you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This may refer to fits of blindness which Job complains of, and a sensation of drowning. Or the darkness can refer to the cosmic 'power of darkness' many then believed in. It can be argued that the book of Job is a dialogue concerning evil and suffering, with three popular views being represented by the three friends. These views are examined and corrected by the personal history of Job, as well as by the epilogue and prologue to the book. Eliphaz seems to be representative of the idea that Job is being hit by supernaturally controlled evil- Eliphaz speaks of a force of darkness (<a href='B:220 22:10-11'>Job 22:10-11</a>) and sinful or faulty Angels living in an unclean Heaven (<a href='B:220 4:18'>Job 4:18</a>; <a href='B:220 15:15'>Job 15:15</a>). Yet the answer to all this is that the Satan figure is under God's control, all Job's misfortunes come from God and His Angels- one of whom may have been called 'the adversary' ('Satan')- are in fact perfectly obedient to Him and not disobedient. And finally, Eliphaz and the friends are rebuked for their various wrong understandings, with God declaring Himself supreme and ultimate sovereign. Likewise Bildad's view of Angels in <a href='B:220 25:5'>Job 25:5</a> "The stars are not pure in God's eyes" is corrected by God in <a href='B:220 38:7'>Job 38:7</a>, when He says that "the morning stars sang together and all the Sons of God shouted for joy".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Isn’t God in the heights of heaven? See the height of the stars, how high they are!-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is similar to Eliphaz's terribly wrong claim in :3 that God is so far away that He is not so serious about human behaviour. Job however is then accused of misusing this to think that God is unable to see his sinful behaviour (:13). The final appearance of God is surely to demonstrate how close God is, and the height of His exaltation is no barrier to His relationship with and feelings toward man.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> You say, ‘What does God know? Can He judge through the thick darkness?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This was not Job's personal view, but he was falsely accused of holding it. In fact, this was the very view of the exiles, and it was this subconscious belief that God could not see them which led to their sins in the first place (<a href='B:290 29:15'>Isa 29:15</a>; <a href='B:290 40:27'>Isa 40:27</a>; <a href='B:300 23:24'>Jer 23:24</a>; <a href='B:310 3:44'>Lam 3:44</a>; <a href='B:330 8:12'>Eze 8:12</a>). So even the experience of false accusation was used by God, so that Job felt the feelings of God's sinful people. Eliphaz was proven wrong enough when the God enveloped by the "thick darkness" of the Sinai theophany saw Israel's sin with the golden calf (s:w. <a href='B:50 4:11'>Deu 4:11</a>; <a href='B:50 5:22'>Deu 5:22</a>). The "thick darkness" is created by God (<a href='B:220 38:9'>Job 38:9</a>), it is He who can shroud Himself from human understanding; but this doesn't mean that He cannot "judge through the thick darkness" (<a href='B:220 22:13'>Job 22:13</a>). The thick darkness was only from man's viewpoint; not from God's. The fact man feels God to be distant and shrouded doesn't mean He actually is. And this is a fundamental truth for all time, that our perceptions of God don't mean that this is what He actually is. For God was not created by man in his image and likeness, but the other way around. "The thick darkness" is the term used to describe the exile in Babylon (<a href='B:290 60:2'>Isa 60:2</a>; <a href='B:300 13:16'>Jer 13:16</a>; <a href='B:330 34:12'>Eze 34:12</a>). But God judged through this, and the exiles weren't hidden from God because of it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Thick clouds are a covering to Him, so that He doesn’t see-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See on :13. Again, these were false representations of Job, attacking a straw man image of Job which had no real existence and was only in the mind of Eliphaz. God created these thick clouds and could dissolve them at will, and maintains them within a perfect balance (s:w. <a href='B:220 37:11'>Job 37:11</a>; <a href='B:220 37:16'>Job 37:16</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>He walks on the vault of the sky’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is alluded to in <a href='B:290 40:22'>Isa 40:22</a>, where the context is of assuring the exiles that in fact they are not forgotten, and the God who is enthroned over Heaven and earth has the absolute power to change their situation in a moment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Will you keep the old way, which wicked men have trodden-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The friends continually appeal to past history. Their wisdom is supposedly in line with that of the ancient sages; and they consider Job's behaviour to be in line with that of previous sinners, those who lived before the flood (see on :16).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> who were snatched away before their time-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Snatched away" is only s:w. <a href='B:220 16:8'>Job 16:8</a>, where Job complains his body is "shrivelled" or "snatched away". Eliphaz is claiming that Job is suffering just as those previously condemned by God had done.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Whose foundation was poured out as a stream-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Literally, "whose foundation was poured out (so as to become) a stream or flood", possibly referring to how the foundations of the earth appeared to turn into gushing waters at the flood (<a href='B:10 7:11'>Gen 7:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> who said to God, ‘Depart from us’; and, ‘What can the Almighty do for us?’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> A misrepresentation of Job's words (<a href='B:220 21:14-15'>Job 21:14-15</a>). The friends reasoned that Job was a sinner because he was suffering, therefore he was to be seen as associated with other sinners such as those destroyed by the flood, and therefore the reported words and attitudes of those sinners must be those of Job. Like many today in pseudo dialogue, the false steps of logic all arose because they refused to engage with Job as a unique person and hear his actual words; instead they pigeon holed him within a certain category they had in their minds. And treated him as if he were like all the others they had placed him with.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Yet He filled their houses with good things, but the counsel of the wicked is far from me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> A sarcastic quotation of Job's words, where he had denied association with the "counsel of the wicked" (<a href='B:220 21:16'>Job 21:16</a>). The descent into sarcasm is a sure sign that genuine dialogue is over. Perhaps Eliphaz is claiming that Job had justified the sinners destroyed by the flood by noting that God had "filled their houses with good things". Whilst there may be evidence of prosperity just before the flood (<a href='B:470 24:38-39'>Mat 24:38-39</a>), Eliphaz is attributing words to Job which he simply never said.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The righteous see it, and are glad. The innocent ridicule them-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Eliphaz equates the friends with "the righteous::. the innocent". But they have earlier condemned Job for claiming he is "innocent", arguing that in fact all men are impure before God. Their obsession with condemning Job led them to contradict themselves, to even condemn themselves so that they might be seen as righteous and Job as sinful. And surely "ridicule" is never appropriate for the righteous in their relationship with the wicked. Job was indeed "the innocent", but he doesn't in this sense rejoice, gloat over nor ridicule the friends. Whereas the friends do "ridicule" Job (s:w. <a href='B:220 21:3'>Job 21:3</a>). This ridiculing of the innocent by those who wrongly thought they were innocent was exactly what happened to the Lord on the cross (<a href='B:230 22:7'>Psa 22:7</a> s:w:), and what was done to the exile (<a href='B:290 33:19'>Isa 33:19</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> saying, ‘Surely those who rose up against us are cut off-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "Has not their substance been taken away"; Heb. "Truly our&nbsp;adversary&nbsp;is cut down". Eliphaz is saying that the righteous, himself and the friends, would rejoice in Job's death because their satan / adversary would then have been cut down. This is how completely transformed was their reasoning. They were acting as the satan to Job; for the satan figure morphs with the friends after he disappears from the story. Job was treated now as the satan, the adversary. But thereby he came to save those who were adversarial to him. He thus bore their sins whilst innocent, which is one of the great themes of the story. And it is in this aspect that he points forward to the suffering, saving work of Lord Jesus.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The fire has consumed their remnant’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Alluding to how the fire of God consumed the wealth and family of Job.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Acquaint yourself with Him, now, and be at peace. Thereby good shall come to you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Eliphaz orders Job to repent, and thereby receive "good" from God. He has overlooked Job's opening position, that the righteous receive both "good" and "evil" from God's hand (<a href='B:220 2:10'>Job 2:10</a>). Again we see the defining parameters of the prologue disregarded by the friends as they rush to judge Job according to their own assumptions about him. "Acquaint yourself with Him" is the very same Hebrew phrase just used by Eliphaz in :2: "Can a man be profitable to God?". Eliphaz has been arguing that being profitable to God is not something God is interested in and Job is wasting his time. But here he contradicts himself. There are many such bald and blatant contradictions within the words of the friends. This is what happens when a preexisting agenda becomes the basis for so called dialogue, and the other party must be condemned at all costs.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Please receive instruction from His mouth, and lay up His words in your heart-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Instruction" is "the law", the word usually used of the law of Moses. Job was to receive it, as Israel received it (<a href='B:50 31:26'>Deu 31:26</a> s:w:). Again he is set up as the representative of Israel, who received the law but refused to put it in their heart. This was not the case with Job personally, but he was treated as if he had done what Israel did.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If you return to the Almighty, you shall be built up-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is language clearly relevant to the building up of the restored Zion which would happen if the exiles returned both to their God and their land. Job had not departed from the Almighty, but he was treated as if he had committed their sins.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>If you put away unrighteousness far from your tents-</p><h4> Eliphaz quotes verbatim from the words of Zophar in <a href='B:220 11:14'>Job 11:14</a>. This again is a parade example of dialogue gone wrong. Those on the accusing side start quoting each other as authorities, whilst continuing to ignore the actual person and words of the accused.</h4>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Lay your treasure in the dust, the gold of Ophir among the stones of the brooks-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is that Job should stop valuing wealth. Gold was washed down from the upper reaches and was found "among the stones of the brook"; and Job is bidden leave it there. Yet again, the divinely given defining parameters of the prologue are ignored; Job's wealth was from God and not because he sought it, and it was removed from him in order to teach the "sons of God", the friends. But they had done what so many do in their interpersonal relationships and supposed diaogues with others; they had ignored the paramaters defining the specific relationship in view, e:g. that we are to esteem our brother better than ourselves, we are to have the love which seeks to believe good rather than evil.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The Almighty will be your treasure, and precious silver to you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Treasure" is only s:w. "treasure" in :24, the word also meaning 'gold'. God was to be Job's gold and not literal gold. LXX "and he shall bring thee forth pure as silver that has been tried by fire". This is the image used of the intended effect of Judah's sufferings in Babylon (<a href='B:290 48:18'>Isa 48:18</a>; <a href='B:330 22:18-22'>Eze 22:18-22</a>). If the LXX is correct, then Job quotes this back to Eliphaz in <a href='B:220 23:10'>Job 23:10</a>. Job is arguing back that he does not love gold over God, and that he will himself come forth as gold after the trials have finished. Unlike the friends, who generally refuse to engage with Job's words in their speeches, Job specifically engages with their words. See on :7.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For then you will delight yourself in the Almighty-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The exiles like Job were to finally delight themselves in God at the restoration, if they followed Job's path (s:w. <a href='B:290 58:14'>Isa 58:14</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And shall lift up your face to God-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Perhaps the Lord had this in view when He commended the man who like Job would not lift up his face to God (<a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a>). The friends were only saved because Job was allowed to lift up his face to God for them (s:w. <a href='B:220 42:8-9'>Job 42:8-9</a>). This was all a powerful way of teaching the friends that they were being saved by absolute grace. The man Job, whose face they were sure God would not accept, saved them by lifting up his face to God. It was the exiles whose faces God would not accept (s:w. <a href='B:460 1:8-9'>Mal 1:8-9</a>). Job was treated like them although he was not like them; he was bearing the punishment of their sins in order to save them, just as he did for the friends, whose faces were likewise unacceptable to God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> You shall make your prayer to Him, and He will hear you. You shall pay your vows-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This turned around in a strange way; for it was due to God hearing Job’s prayer that the friends were finally saved. God surely alludes back here when He says that Job will pray for them, “and him will I accept” (<a href='B:220 42:8'>Job 42:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> You shall also decree a thing, and it shall be established to you. Light shall shine on your ways-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "And he shall establish to thee again a habitation of righteousness and there shall be light upon thy paths". Again this is the language of later Isaiah about Zion's light and the restored Zion.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The decree which is established is parallel to the prayer which is heard (:27,28). This was in fact true of Job, for it was thanks to his prayers that the friends were finally saved; when they had here insisted that God didn't hear Job's prayers. In fact it was their prayers which were not heard. But there is a wider principle here. Absolute faith in prayer which is according to God's broad desires results in our requests&nbsp; effectively being decrees of what is now going to happen! It is not difficult for us to know what the will of God in the sense of His desires is. We have been born again by the word of God. We were not born again by the will of man, but by the&nbsp; will&nbsp; of God. The will of God is therefore found in the word of God (<a href='B:660 1:18'>Jas 1:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:23'>1Pe 1:23</a>; <a href='B:500 1:12-14'>Joh 1:12-14</a>). Thus if we pray according to our knowledge of God's desires as explained in the word, we are praying according to His will- and therefore if we have faith "He hears us". The Lord Jesus said as much: "If ye abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you" (<a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a>). Notice He didn't say 'you will ask whatever is according to God's will , and it will be heard'. We ask whatever we desire, and we will receive. This is because our will should be the will of God if the word of God is in us. And as we mature, our experience of answered prayer gets better, because we more intuitively sense what is God's will.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> When they cast down, you shall say, ‘Be lifted up’. He will save the humble person-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See on :7. This is quoted in <a href='B:660 4:6'>Jas 4:6</a>. As noted earlier, the friends come out with some truths, but they are framed in the wrong context. What they say is so true it is even worthy of later quotation, but the context in which they use their 'truth' is so wrong. And this is an example for all time. The friends may be saying that Job now cannot lift up the cast down by his prayers nor save anyone (:27,28) because he is a sinner. All this was turned right around at the end, where it is the friends whose prayers cannot be heard, and who are saved from their "cast down" position by Job's prayers.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He will even deliver him who is not innocent. Yes, he shall be delivered through the cleanness of your hands- There are times and places where God is willing to save people for the sake of the spirituality of a third party, but if he or she fails in this, deliverance doesn’t necessarily arise from another place, as it would have done in Esther’s time. Eliphaz perceived all this when he told Job that a truly righteous man can “save the humble person. He shall deliver even him that is not innocent: yeah, he shall be delivered through the cleanness of thine hands” (<a href='B:220 22:30'>Job 22:30</a> RV). And this was proved true later on- for Eliphaz was saved due to Job’s mediation for him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Then Job answered-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job's reply over Job 23 and Job 24 slips into self justification and fails to engage specifically with what Eliphaz has said in his last speech. Job 24 is largely a repeat of the general observation that the wicked prosper, and the suffering of anyone is therefore no sign they are sinning. This all indicates the overall decline of the dialogue. And it is a path followed by so many failed personal interactions.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Even today-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As if to say that yes, I am still going to keep complaining about my situation.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>My complaint is grievous. His hand is heavy in spite of my groaning-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> AV "My stroke is heavier than my groaning”. Job fell into the trap of thinking that his terrible situation somehow allowed him to speak whatever words came into his head. Job felt he hadn’t been ‘fed’ and so he was entitled to “bray” and “low” over his misfortune (<a href='B:220 6:5'>Job 6:5</a>). Because of the weight of his sufferings, he thereby justified the fact that "Therefore have my words been rash (<a href='B:220 6:3'>Job 6:3</a>). Likewise “Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit” (<a href='B:220 7:11'>Job 7:11</a>). “I will give free course to my complaint. I will speak in the bitterness of my soul” (<a href='B:220 10:1'>Job 10:1</a> RV). Zophar criticizes Job being “full of talk” and speaking “the multitude of words”, “for thou sayest, my doctrine is pure” (<a href='B:220 11:1-4'>Job 11:1-4</a>)- as if Job felt that because he held true doctrine he was justified in pouring out words as he did. “Why should I not be impatient?” (<a href='B:220 21:4'>Job 21:4</a> RV). “Today is my complaint bitter. My stroke is heavier than my groaning” (<a href='B:220 23:2'>Job 23:2</a>)- i:e. his complaining was due to his sufferings. “If I hold my peace, I shall give up the spirit” (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a> RVmg:). Job felt that the situation he was in forced him to use the words he did, and certainly justified it [we may well have used this reasoning ourselves when justifying the use of bad language]. But in the end, Elihu on God’s behalf rebuked him for his wrong words. And Job himself recognized: “I am vile. I will lay mine hand upon my mouth” in regret of his words (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>). “Wherefore I loathe my words and repent” (<a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a> RVmg:). He realized his mistake: he had thought that the situation justified his words. Now he hung his head and admitted that there was no justification for speaking in the way he had. Especially in the matter of the tongue, we can so easily justify ourselves; ‘I only said / did it [or didn’t do it] because</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>’. And it is all so child-like. Once we leave off all attempts at self-justification, we will face up to our sins.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Job understood God to be in control in Heaven; he rejects the idea of a cosmic conflict going on ‘up there’ which the friends seem to allude to. More specifically, Job speaks of how God’s hand forms and can pierce the “crooked serpent” and smite any monster (<a href='B:220 26:11-14'>Job 26:11-14</a>). It’s as if Job is mocking the idea that God has let him go into the hands of the cosmic monsters which the friends believed in. For Job so often stresses that it is the “hand of God” which has brought His affliction (<a href='B:220 19:21'>Job 19:21</a>; <a href='B:220 23:2'>Job 23:2</a>). That Divine hand was far greater than any mythical ‘Satan’ figure. The theme of his speech in Job 28 is that Yahweh alone is to be feared throughout the entire cosmos. Nobody else – such as the ‘Satan’ figures alluded to by the friends – needed to be feared.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Oh that I knew where I might find Him! That I might come even to His seat!-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job sought to "probe" (AV "find out") the Almighty (<a href='B:220 23:3'>Job 23:3</a>; <a href='B:220 28:12'>Job 28:12</a>), whereas Elihu appears to agree with Zophar that "the Almighty" cannot be 'found out' (<a href='B:220 11:7'>Job 11:7</a>; <a href='B:220 37:23'>Job 37:23</a>). God's own appearance at the end is perhaps an answer to this. He cannot be 'found out' by intellectual argument or personal righteousness, but He still responds to the spirit of Job's request by appearing. Instead, He 'finds out' people and saves them by grace. Paul expresses the same idea when he writes that it is not so much a case of man 'knowing God', but rather of being "known of God" by grace (<a href='B:550 4:9'>Gal 4:9</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'><a href='B:220 23:3'>Job 23:3</a> perhaps epitomizes this desire of Job for judgment day: “Oh, that today I might find him, that I might come to his judgment seat!” (NAB). He wanted the judgment seat to come that very day! The invisible hand of God is working in every life that suffers from ones’ brethren ‘playing God’ in false judgment of us</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> to lead us to this wonderful and blessed attitude.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The use of the word "order" in Job's words in 23:3-6 repays examination: " Oh that I knew where I might find (God)! that I might come even to His seat!. I would order my cause before him, and fill my mouth with arguments::. Will He plead against me with his great power? No". See on :10.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I would set my cause in order before Him, and fill my mouth with arguments-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Earlier, Job had judged himself, setting in order his legal case, but declaring himself righteous (<a href='B:220 13:8'>Job 13:8</a>). By <a href='B:220 23:4'>Job 23:4</a>, Job is realizing that he needs to set his case in order before God; but he can't find God, or get God to engage in this game of judgment. He needed the final appearance of God at the end of the book to review his case, and declare that he is in fact wrong and condemned. But by grace, God will count him as right. He was prepared for this by Elihu's speech in <a href='B:220 37:19'>Job 37:19</a>: "Teach us what we shall tell Him, for we can’t make our case by reason of darkness". "Make our case" is s:w. "set my cause in order".</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Job appeals for ‘witnesses’ (<a href='B:220 9:33-35'>Job 9:33-35</a>; <a href='B:220 16:18-22'>Job 16:18-22</a>; <a href='B:220 19:20-27'>Job 19:20-27</a>), an advocate in Heaven (<a href='B:220 9:33'>Job 9:33</a>), denies his guilt and demands a legal list of his sins (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a>), he wishes for God to come to trial (<a href='B:220 9:3'>Job 9:3</a>), and thus Job is described as a man who has taken out a ‘case’ with God (<a href='B:220 23:4'>Job 23:4</a>; <a href='B:220 40:2'>Job 40:2</a>). Job 29-31 is effectively Job’s declaration of legal innocence and an appeal to God to hear his case more sympathetically (<a href='B:220 31:35'>Job 31:35</a>). And of course God pronounces a final legal verdict at the very end (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>), in response to Job’s earlier plea: “Sleeplessly I wait for His reply” (<a href='B:220 16:22'>Job 16:22</a>). It’s as if the whole experience of Job was [at least partly] in order to test out the Canaanite theories of ‘Satan’, suffering and evil in the court of Heaven; and also the various theories which arose to explain Judah's captivity in Babylon. The friends represent the traditional views of evil, and often make reference to the myths of their day about ‘Satan’ figures. They speak as if they are the final court – Eliphaz speaks of how the judges and elders of their day, the “holy ones”, had concluded Job was guilty, and that they, the friends, were right: “To which of the holy ones will you appeal [legal language]?::. we have [legally] examined this, and it [Job’s guilt] is true” (<a href='B:220 5:1'>Job 5:1</a>; <a href='B:220 5:27'>Job 5:27</a>). This is of great comfort to those who feel misjudged by man – above them in Heaven the ultimate Heavenly court is considering our case, and that is all that matters.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I would know the words which He would answer me, and understand what He would tell me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job promises to be obedient and acceptant of whatever outcome there was from his meeting with God. And when God does finally appear and in a way condemn him, he does accept this. Or perhaps the sense is simply as in GNB "I want to know what he would say and how he would answer me".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Would He contend with me in the greatness of His power? No, but He would listen to me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> AV "Would he plead against me:::?". God, and Elihu on His behalf, did plead against Job by recounting God's power. Judgment before God was not quite as Job had imagined. When Elihu was established in Job's mind as God's true representative, he found that he had nothing to say, as he thought he would have. Elihu seems to refer back to this speech when he challenges the dumfounded Job: "If thou hast anything to say, answer me::. if thou canst answer me, set thy words in order before me" (<a href='B:220 33:32'>Job 33:32</a>; <a href='B:220 33:5'>Job 33:5</a> AV). Elihu has in mind <a href='B:220 23:4'>Job 23:4</a> "I would set my cause in order before Him". Job several times spoke of how he would fully explain himself to God, if he found Him. Yet in the presence of God and Elihu, he finds that all the words dry up. Words became irrelevant. All he can do is behold the majesty of God's righteousness, and declare his own unrighteousness. That spiritual pinnacle of Job still lies ahead for the majority of us. The desire to speak is a desire to express our own thoughts. Words are a construct which can trap us. Only God's words can liberate. There is a wordless element in being truly humbled before the Almighty.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> There the upright might reason with Him, so I should be delivered forever from my judge-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job's imagination of judgment day was that there would be some upright person present who would be as his advocate, and deliver him from God as his judge. Elihu appears according to Job's wish (<a href='B:220 33:6'>Job 33:6</a>); but he condemns Job. And God then appears in person to judge Job. Elihu couldn't save Job from that.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If I go east, He is not there; if west, I can’t find Him-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> We note there was no God to be found to the east, whereas He is apparently present at the other compass points, although invisible to Job. Perhaps this would be a reference to the spiritual bankruptcy of the children of the east, from where the friends had come from. It would also be a statement from Job, as one of the greatest of the children of the east, that there was no God in his surrounding society.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He works to the north, but I can’t see Him. He turns south, but I can’t catch a glimpse of Him-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "The north" in Hebrew is 'the hidden place'. There appears to be the idea that God is indeed at work to the north and south, but Job can't glimpse God there.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But He knows the way that I take-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job cannot discern the way God takes, not even the compass point He is working on; but the point is that God knows the way Job takes. Paul expresses the same idea when he writes that it is not so much a case of man 'knowing God', but rather of being "known of God" by grace (<a href='B:550 4:9'>Gal 4:9</a>). See on :3:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;When He has tried me, I shall come forth like gold-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This appears to be an allusion to <a href='B:220 22:25'>Job 22:25</a> LXX "and he shall bring thee forth pure as silver that has been tried by fire". This is the image used of the intended effect of Judah's sufferings in Babylon (<a href='B:290 48:18'>Isa 48:18</a>; <a href='B:330 22:18-22'>Eze 22:18-22</a>). If the LXX is correct, then Job quotes this back to Eliphaz here in <a href='B:220 23:10'>Job 23:10</a>. Job is arguing back that he does not love gold over God, and that he will himself come forth as gold after the trials have finished. Unlike the friends, who generally refuse to engage with Job's words in their speeches, Job specifically engages with their words.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> My foot has held fast to His steps. I have kept His way, and not turned aside-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job says this in the context of having lamented that he senses God's activity in various places, but cannot see God there (:9,10). But he has planted his feet in the footsteps left by the invisible God and not turned aside from that path. Job "held fast" to God's footprints, even though He didn't see Him, and yet he later realized that the afflictions God sent had taken hold [s:w. "held fast"] to him (<a href='B:220 30:16'>Job 30:16</a>). We see here the mutuality between God and man, achieved through the experience of suffering brought by Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I haven’t gone back from the commandment of His lips. I have treasured up the words of His mouth more than my necessary food-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job had had no fresh revelation from God since God gave the satan power over him. Perhaps he had been party to the discussion between God, satan and the other "sons of God" (the friends) recorded in the prologue. He would have hung on to God's statement that He considered Job to be His righteous servant. And that the afflictions were somehow for the benefit of the friends / satan / "sons of God". See on :14. But there is a wider principle here. The Word of God should be our daily food - indeed, our dependence upon it, and natural desire for it, should be even greater than our instinctive appetite for physical food: “::. I have treasured the words of his mouth more than my necessary food” was Job’s feeling (<a href='B:220 23:12'>Job 23:12</a>). Jeremiah likewise: “Your words were found, and I ate them, and Your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (<a href='B:300 15:16'>Jer 15:16</a>). Making time during each day for regular Bible reading is therefore a vital thing to build into our pattern of daily life. An uninterrupted 30 minutes of Bible study first thing in the morning is bound to start us off each day in the right spiritual gear. Such faith-forming habits are vital.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But He stands alone-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea may be that God remained "alone" from Job's perspective, refusing to allow Job to come to Him and enter into dialogue.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And who can oppose Him? What His soul desires, even that He does-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The dramatic story of Job thrice uses the same phrase as in <a href='B:290 43:13'>Isa 43:13</a>, concluding that "who can hinder:::?" God's way (<a href='B:220 9:12'>Job 9:12</a>; <a href='B:220 11:10'>Job 11:10</a>; <a href='B:220 23:13'>Job 23:13</a>). The exiles were to understand that no human opposition or discouragement can turn back or hinder God's purpose to save His people, even if they are as Job in suffering. His saving and restorative purpose will not be hindered, if we wish to identify with it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For He performs that which is appointed for me. Many such things are with Him-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again Job demonstrates his understanding that all his afflictions were from God, not any cosmic satan being. And those afflictions were those "appointed"- perhaps referring to God's words in the prologue, which Job had continually meditated upon (see on :12; <a href='B:220 24:1'>Job 24:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Therefore I am terrified at His presence. When I consider, I am afraid of Him-</p><h4> Job has lamented that he senses God but cannot see Him (:8,9). But clearly he felt His presence in a very real manner. So we conclude that the presence of God can be felt in His very absence. We like Job can sense His hand working through His very silence and apparent lack of direct engagement with us.</h4>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For God has made my heart faint. The Almighty has terrified me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See on :17. We can read this 'terror' as a reference to the panic attacks which were apparently part of Job's sickness (s:w. <a href='B:220 22:10'>Job 22:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Because I was not cut off before the darkness, neither did He cover my face with the thick darkness- The Hebrew in :16,17 is difficult, and GNB offers "Almighty God has destroyed my courage. It is God, not the dark, that makes me afraid—even though the darkness has made me blind". The darkness was typically associated with cosmic forces of evil. Job sees through that and perceives it is God behind the darkness. The exiles had to learn the same (<a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Why aren’t times laid up by the Almighty? Why don’t those who know Him perceive His days?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This could be read as a complaint that God's people don't realize the time periods of His operations in advance. Job sensed that his afflictions were for a period (see on <a href='B:220 23:12'>Job 23:12</a>; <a href='B:220 23:14'>Job 23:14</a>), but he didn't know the end point. There is a purpose to that. All attempts to understand Bible prophecy as history and time periods predicted in advance are missing the whole point; these prophecies are so that we will understand once the fulfilment comes, rather than presenting history in advance.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> There are people who remove the landmarks. They violently take away flocks, and feed them-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Alluding to the taking away of Job's flocks. Probably his landmarks were removed at the same time. I have suggested that the satan figure morphs into the friends, and they may actually have been responsible for the theft of Job's flocks. The Bedouin tribes were certainly from the same areas as the friends came from. Job may be hinting that the theory that sin brought judgment was wrong, because the sins of the friends against him weren't being immediately judged.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They drive away the donkey of the fatherless, and they take the widow’s ox for a pledge-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Drive away" is the word used of the driving of God's people into captivity (<a href='B:50 4:27'>Deu 4:27</a>; <a href='B:50 28:37'>Deu 28:37</a>). The exiles were wondering why judgment had come upon them, and not upon their captors and abusers. The answer of the book of Job is that they were as Job, and the wicked whose day of judgment was surely to come ultimately refer to their captors.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They turn the needy out of the way. The poor of the earth all hide themselves-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Turning aside the poor out of the way is the very phrase used in <a href='B:370 2:7'>Amo 2:7</a> of how the Jewish leadership had done this to the righteous remnant. Again, the idea is that sufferings of the righteous remnant were going to be finally judged, even though it appeared as if the wicked had got away with it. This had powerful relevance to the exiles.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, as wild donkeys in the desert, they go forth to their work, seeking diligently for food. The wilderness yields them bread for their children-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> It's unclear whether those referred to are the Bedouin tribes of the preceding verses, or the desperately poor who are not helped by them (as in the subsequent verses). Possibly the ambiguity is purposeful, as if to make the point that those Bedouin tribes didn't help their own people even, and they themselves became poor and desperate. See on :6.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They cut their provender in the field. They glean the vineyard of the wicked-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "They have reaped a field that was not their own before the time: the poor have laboured in the vineyards of the ungodly without pay and without food". The impression is that they were themselves thieves and yet were also oppressed by others; see on :5.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They lie all night naked without clothing, and have no covering in the cold-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Particularly relevant to the cold desert nights in the region.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They are wet with the showers of the mountains, and embrace the rock for lack of a shelter-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This could perhaps hint that through the experience of affliction, men "embrace the rock", a symbol of God and His Son, the Messiah Jesus. Job likewise was in essence led to the spirit of Christ through his experience of the abuse of others and lack of comfort from his own brethren.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> There are those who pluck the fatherless from the breast, and take a pledge of the poor-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Baby stealing was exactly the sort of thing practiced by the Bedouin Arab groups who had stolen Job's property, perhaps under the direction of the friends (see on :2). Job has accused the friends of abusing the fatherless (<a href='B:220 6:27'>Job 6:27</a>). The friends accused Job of doing so (<a href='B:220 22:7'>Job 22:7</a>). Job now insists that it is the wicked who do this (<a href='B:220 24:3'>Job 24:3</a>; <a href='B:220 24:9'>Job 24:9</a>), and is dogmatic that he has in fact blessed the fatherless (<a href='B:220 29:12'>Job 29:12</a>; <a href='B:220 31:17'>Job 31:17</a>; <a href='B:220 31:21'>Job 31:21</a>). As explained on <a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>, Job in various aspects suffers as if guilty for the very sins committed by the friends. He was their representative, and suffered the results of their sins, although he hadn't committed them. Therefore at the end, his prayer and further sacrifice for them was accepted, and they were thereby saved- by grace indeed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> so that they go around naked without clothing. Being hungry, they carry the sheaves-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Keeping the pledge of the poor so he is left naked (:9) was recognized from earliest times as wicked behaviour. It is condemned in the law of Moses. But Job is observing that those who do even such things are apparently not immediately judged.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They make oil within the walls of these men. They tread wine presses, and suffer thirst-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The wicked didn't even let their workers drink from the grape juice they were treading out. The law of Moses allowed even animals to eat bits of what they were treading out. This legislation clearly had a basis in very early standards of what was right and wrong, for the book of Job appears to be about a situation before the time of Moses.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> From out of the populous city, men groan. The soul of the wounded cries out, yet God doesn’t regard the folly-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Because God doesn't judge the abuses listed in the previous verses, it is therefore wrong to suggest that He immediately judges sin with suffering, and rewards obedience with material blessing. That's Job's point. But Job also feels he has 'cried out' to God for justice and not been heard (<a href='B:220 19:7'>Job 19:7</a>; <a href='B:220 30:20'>Job 30:20</a>); and that there is nothing wrong with crying out to God in distress, it is a perfectly natural reaction (<a href='B:220 24:12'>Job 24:12</a>). One comment upon this is that the young ravens cry out to God for food and yet are not always heard (<a href='B:220 38:41'>Job 38:41</a> s:w:). But God in the wider picture sustains all of creation by grace. Job did well to cry out to God even if there was no answer, because the hypocrites do not 'cry out' to God when they are facing judgment (<a href='B:220 36:13'>Job 36:13</a> s:w:). Job feels hurt that God has not responded to his 'crying out' because he says that when the needy cried out to him, he had heard (<a href='B:220 29:12'>Job 29:12</a> s:w:). But here we see his works based approach; he thought that his response to those who cried out to him meant that therefore God must respond to his crying out. And God is not so primitive. His apparent silence is because His response is not predicated upon human works and charity. It is by grace alone, as is taught in His final appearance to Job. The exiles likewise were to finally see the response to their crying out to God in the restoration (<a href='B:290 58:9'>Isa 58:9</a>), just as their representative Jonah cried out to God from the belly of sheol amidst the sea of nations, and was heard (s:w. <a href='B:390 2:2'>Jon 2:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> These are of those who rebel against the light. They don’t know its ways, nor stay in its paths-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The implication could be that these people knew the light but refused to walk in the way of light nor its paths; whereas Job insists he has held to the true path (<a href='B:220 23:11'>Job 23:11</a>). He perhaps is making oblique reference to the friends; who may be the wicked who had stolen his flocks (see on :2). But this attacking of the partner in dialogue is an indication that the dialogue is failing: 'I held on to the true path, you didn't' is not engagement with what has been said.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The murderer rises with the light. He kills the poor and needy. In the night he is like a thief-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job is appearing to overly labour his point; that the wicked are not immediately judged, nor are the righteous immediately rewarded. He almost revels in his description of wicked deeds which go unpunished, making the point that light or darkness make no difference to the wicked. Darkness is not a deterrent to them; they sin equally using both the light and the darkness. Therefore the accusation that Job has sinned in darkness is therefore untrue. But Job appears to be labouring his point. This too is a feature of how dialogue goes wrong once the actual words of our partner are ignored; lengthy digressions are made to prove a relatively minor point, and the essential thrust of the arguments is thereby lost.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The eye also of the adulterer waits for the twilight, saying, ‘No eye shall see me’. He disguises his face-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :14, the idea is that the wicked sin as much in the light as in the darkness. Murderers take the light as a signal to murder (:14), whilst adulterers wait for darkness to commit adultery.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In the dark they dig through houses. They shut themselves up in the daytime. They don’t know the light-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As commented upon on :14, Job is far over labouring his point- that sinners sin in both the light and the darkness.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For the morning is to all of them like thick darkness, for they know the terrors of the thick darkness-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Perhaps the idea is that they are disappointed when the morning comes, because they have to stop their wicked works. But AV "the shadow of death" for NEV "thick darkness" suggests that the morning is the time of their death. Job envisaged a morning coming which would mean judgment and death for the wicked. In the end this was to be the hope of the exiles too, that a day of judgment would come with the arising of Messiah as the dawn (<a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They are foam on the surface of the waters. Their portion is cursed in the earth. They don’t turn into the way of the vineyards-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> GNB "The wicked are swept away by floods, and the land they own is under God's curse; they no longer go to work in their vineyards". This is relevant to the Jews exiled from their inheritance in the land and their vineyards. AV "He is swift as the waters" may refer to the swift coming of Divine judgment, like a flash flood of waters. The same word is used of the judgment of God's people (<a href='B:310 4:19'>Lam 4:19</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Drought and heat consume the snow waters, so does Sheol those who have sinned-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In <a href='B:220 6:17'>Job 6:17</a>, Job sees the melting of the snow waters as representing the failing comfort of his three friends; now he uses the figure about the destruction of the wicked; he comes towards the conclusions that his friends, his fellow "sons of God" of <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>, were in fact sinners, they are the wicked Bedouin people who have brought his trials (see on :2). And this is all preparing the way for him to finally pray for their forgiveness and salvation at the end of the book. Job, the righteous remnant amongst the captives, were to pray for and save the unspiritual majority; but they had to be convinced of how far astray their brethren really were. We note too that sheol, the grave, is understood by Job as the destruction of sinners; although he himself speaks of how sheol is waiting for him, although he believed he would be resurrected to justification in a bodily form. He therefore believed that the wages of sin is death (<a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a>) in the grave [sheol, where both righteous and wicked alike go], and not eternal torment in some other place.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The womb shall forget him. The worm shall feed sweetly on him. He shall be no more remembered. Unrighteousness shall be broken as a tree-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> GNB "Not even their mothers remember them now; they are eaten by worms and destroyed like fallen trees". As noted on :19, Job understood the judgment of the wicked as being eternal death, rather than conscious eternal torment. In <a href='B:220 17:14'>Job 17:14</a>, Job uses the same language about his own impending death. He believed that both he and the wicked were going to the same place in death; the difference was therefore in that Job would be resurrected, whereas the wicked would remain dead.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The language of judgment as a tree being broken down was relevant to the exiles, who were bidden see their hope in the revival of the cut down stump, shooting forth as the shoot who would be known as Messiah.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He devours the barren who don’t bear. He shows no kindness to the widow-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job appears unable to resist the temptation to dwell yet further upon the wickedness of the wicked; for this further comment upon them appears slightly out of context between verses 20 and 22. He begins to bring God into the equation, but then in this verse flips back to relishing how wicked are the wicked, and how they avoid judgment in this life. Such an attitude would be appropriate if indeed the wicked he had in view were the friends who were seated before him (see on :2).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Yet God preserves the mighty by His power. He rises up who has no assurance of life-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The 'rising up' could mean that the wicked mighty people are not only preserved alive by God, but at times rise up from their temporal sufferings.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God gives them security, and they rest in it. His eyes are on their ways-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The apparent security of the wicked is from God, somehow; but God's eyes [a reference to the Angels?] are on their ways, and therefore [by implication] they will come to judgment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They are exalted; yet a little while, and they are gone. Yes, they are brought low, they are taken out of the way as all others, and are cut off as the tops of the ears of grain-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This was how the Egyptians harvested corn, cutting off the entire ear of corn at the top of the stalk, and lends support to the impression that these things really happened "in the land of Uz" to a historical Job (see on <a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>). The death of the wicked "as all others" implies to job that there must be a future point of justification for the righteous; for the wicked and the righteous die the same death, as other scripture also makes clear.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If it isn’t so now, who will prove me a liar, and make my speech worth nothing?- Job has argued himself into an invincible position, in his own eyes. Indeed, all he says is true; but like the friends, truths are expressed but within a wrong context. Finally Job is to lay his hand upon his mouth in repentance (<a href='B:240 30:32'>Pro 30:32</a>; <a href='B:400 7:16'>Mic 7:16</a>) and recognize he has not spoken rightly (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>), although he earlier demanded the friends lay their hands upon their mouths before the power of his arguments (<a href='B:220 21:5'>Job 21:5</a>). God confirms this by remarking that whoever has hope of overcoming Leviathan, His great beast (perhaps representing death and human mortality) is a liar to think he has such hope (<a href='B:220 41:9'>Job 41:9</a> s:w. "liar"). Job has forgotten his humanity, despite being 'right' in his arguments. This is the problem with possessing truth; it can lead us to wrongly forget our humanity and consider ourselves invincible.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Then Bildad the Shuhite answered-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Here Bildad is merely using the previous arguments of Eliphaz in <a href='B:220 11:17'>Job 11:17</a>; <a href='B:220 15:15'>Job 15:15</a>. This is another sign that dialogue has failed- when one side starts quoting the words and arguments of their own side, rather than engaging with the actual words of the other side. These dialogues are recorded to teach us how not to dialogue, and to see the extreme consequence of refusing to even want to understand each other.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Dominion and fear are with Him. He makes peace in His high places-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again, this is true, but it is a truth used in a wrong context. For Bildad's argument here is a repeat of what Eliphaz has said, that God is so great and high, considering even the Angels unclean, that He is really not that concerned with man, and Job's idea that God ought to be passionately concerned about him is therefore blasphemous.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Can His armies be counted? On whom does His light not arise?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The armies presumably refer to His Angels (as GNB). Job didn't disagree with this; he has just argued in <a href='B:220 24:14-17'>Job 24:14-17</a> that indeed God's light is everywhere, but sinners refuse to walk in it, and the presence of darkness or His light is no deterrent to sinners. But that argument is totally bypassed by Bildad here because he is set on repeating earlier arguments of his friend Eliphaz. Again, this is all a parade example of dialogue gone wrong.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> How then can man be just with God? Or how can he who is born of a woman be clean?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Bildad isn't engaging with Job's arguments now, he is simply repeating the false statements of Eliphaz that the human condition is such that we can never be just with God. Bildad has forgotten the parameters imposed by God in the prologue- that in His eyes, Job was perfect. The final justification of Job with God, by grace, was an answer enough to this wrong view of human nature. See on :6.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The question "How can a man be just with God?" is the same question as 'How can a man ever be clean before a perfect God?', and is repeated in this form in <a href='B:220 9:30'>Job 9:30</a>; <a href='B:220 15:15'>Job 15:15</a>; <a href='B:220 25:4'>Job 25:4</a>:&nbsp;&nbsp; The exiles had considered themselves cleansed whiter than snow because of their obedience to some parts of the Mosaic law (<a href='B:310 4:7'>Lam 4:7</a>), but failed to accept that such cleansing to be whiter than snow is only possible by doing what David did, and casting ourselves upon God's grace outside of justification by works (<a href='B:230 51:7'>Psa 51:7</a>). Job was to learn this lesson at the end. It was this offer which was made to Job just as it was to Judah under judgment (<a href='B:290 1:18'>Isa 1:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, even the moon has no brightness, and the stars are not pure in His sight-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> It can be argued that the book of Job is a dialogue concerning evil and suffering, with three popular views being represented by the three friends. These views are examined and corrected by the personal history of Job, as well as by the epilogue and prologue to the book. Eliphaz seems to be representative of the idea that Job is being hit by supernaturally controlled evil- Eliphaz speaks of a force of darkness (<a href='B:220 22:10-11'>Job 22:10-11</a>) and sinful or faulty Angels living in an unclean Heaven (<a href='B:220 4:18'>Job 4:18</a>; <a href='B:220 15:15'>Job 15:15</a>). Yet the answer to all this is that the Satan figure is under God's control, all Job's misfortunes come from God and His Angels- one of whom may have been called 'the adversary' ('Satan')- are in fact perfectly obedient to Him and not disobedient. And finally, Eliphaz and the friends are rebuked for their various wrong understandings, with God declaring Himself supreme and ultimate sovereign. Likewise Bildad's view of Angels in <a href='B:220 25:5'>Job 25:5</a> "The stars are not pure in God's eyes" is corrected by God in <a href='B:220 38:7'>Job 38:7</a>, when He says that "the morning stars sang together and all the Sons of God shouted for joy".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> how much less man, who is a worm, the son of man, who is a worm!- Bildad is simply wrong to argue that because man is a worm, therefore he is of no particular value to God, seeing that his nature means that he can never be clean nor just before God (see on :4). This is not the case. The Lord Jesus had human nature but was clean and just before God, showing for all time the possibilities intrinsic within human nature. The same word is used of how He on the cross felt as a worm (<a href='B:230 22:6'>Psa 22:6</a>). It is the very message to the exiles: "Fear not, you worm Jacob, and you men of Israel: I will help you" (<a href='B:290 41:14'>Isa 41:14</a>). Though their sins were red as the crimson worm (s:w:), they would be made white as wool (<a href='B:290 1:18'>Isa 1:18</a>). The lowness of man is no barrier to being clean before God, nor to being revived and used by Him.</p>


text:
<h4> Then Job answered-</h4><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The speech of Job recorded in Job 26-31 is the longest in the book. The pattern of each of the three friends giving a speech and Job replying, spread over three speeches, appears to slightly break down in that Zophar doesn't give his third speech. We note that Bildad's final speech was very brief, and was really only quoting previous words from Eliphaz (Job 25). This could all create the intentional impression in the drama that the friends were running out of steam in their arguments. Job now makes a very long speech::. but that is not his victory nor justification. That is only provided by God's appearance at the end, when Job repents of his words. It is usual for the genre of drama to play with audience expectation and dash it to make a point. That is what is happening here, with Bildad's final speech really a flop, and Zophar not giving the speech which the structure of the drama requires him to make. And we are also led to expect Job's final long speech to be his justification, seeing most of what he says is true in itself. But this too is a dashed expectation; for God appears and condemns them all, and then justifies Job by grace. But see on <a href='B:220 27:11'>Job 27:11</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> How have you helped him who is without power! How have you saved the arm that has no strength!-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The reference may again be to Cain, who was cursed with the ground being "without power" to him (<a href='B:10 4:12'>Gen 4:12</a> s:w:), as an apostate Israel were (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:20'>Lev 26:20</a>). In this case Job would be saying that even the condemned in this life could be helped to revival. That was what he had learnt of God, and he expected men to act with a similar saving grace. Elihu confirms the argument by saying that although God has all power, He doesn't despise those who have none (<a href='B:220 36:5'>Job 36:5</a>). The exiles were also without "power" (<a href='B:310 1:6'>Lam 1:6</a> s:w:), represented by Daniel in just that position (s:w. <a href='B:340 10:8'>Dan 10:8</a>; <a href='B:340 10:16-17'>Dan 10:16-17</a>), with "no strength" (<a href='B:330 19:14'>Eze 19:14</a>), but would "renew their strength / power" (<a href='B:290 40:31'>Isa 40:31</a> s:w:). That revival would not be by human power but by God's spirit (<a href='B:450 4:6'>Zec 4:6</a>), after the pattern of Job's revival. The Zion who had "no strength" would put on strength (s:w. <a href='B:290 51:9'>Isa 51:9</a>; <a href='B:290 52:1'>Isa 52:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> How have you counselled him who has no wisdom, and plentifully declared sound knowledge!-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job felt he had been deprived of everything, including wisdom and knowledge. But this was not because he was unwise; he is presented as a perfect man (<a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>). God is able to give and take wisdom, as is seen in the natural creation (<a href='B:220 39:17'>Job 39:17</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> To whom have you uttered words? Whose spirit came forth from you?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> To ask this question is to imply that they were false prophets (<a href='B:110 22:24'>1Ki 22:24</a>). And God confirms this at the end, in saying that the friends had not spoken rightly about Him (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Those who are deceased tremble, those beneath the waters and all that live in them-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> AV "Dead things are formed from under the waters". "Waters" are a clear figure for judgment. Job's great theme is that out of death, there can be revival and restoration. Death itself is no barrier to this revival. This was the lesson taught to the exiles by the vision of the dry, dead bones of Israel reviving. The LXX therefore speaks of "giants be born from under the water".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Sheol is naked before God, and Abaddon has no covering-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is a deconstruction of Mot, the god of death; see on <a href='B:220 10:8'>Job 10:8</a>. He sees God is the real attacker, not, therefore, Mot or any other such being. Note too how <a href='B:40 16:31-35'>Num 16:31-35</a> describes God as swallowing up Korah, Dathan and Abiram into death in the earth – as if to deconstruct the idea that Mot did things like this. But in the context noted on :5, death is no barrier to God's work of revival and restoration.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This continues the ideas of :5,6; God can revive and restore from death, He can create matter, and can hang great weights upon nothing. Emptiness and deserted space can be used by Him. And this was the challenge of faith to the exiles. To believe that the empty space of the Jerusalem temple and the ruined land could again be stretched out by God as a tabernacle is stretched out, and revived (s:w. <a href='B:290 54:2'>Isa 54:2</a>); just as Job's ravaged body and life could be restored in a moment. Creation itself had been brought about from that which was "without form" (<a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a>, s:w. "empty space"), and so the new creation of Job and Israel would be likewise.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He binds up the waters in His thick clouds, and the cloud is not burst under them-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job likes to reason from the hints found within the natural creation, and Elihu and God Himself will speak to him in these very terms which he clearly so appreciated. Here, Job's point is that great weight can be carried by that which is nothing, and will not be broken by the great weight. This is in harmony with the preceding verses; Job believed that God would and could revive from nothing, from death itself.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He encloses the face of His throne, and spreads His cloud upon it-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As so often in the drama of Job, truths are presented but without context. This is indeed true; but Job and the exiles had to learn that the cloud that came between God and themselves was that of human sin (<a href='B:290 44:22'>Isa 44:22</a>), even though God responded by bringing that cloud (<a href='B:220 36:32'>Job 36:32</a>). The years of exile were the day of cloud (<a href='B:330 34:12'>Eze 34:12</a>; <a href='B:310 3:44'>Lam 3:44</a>). But through that cloud, the light of God's saving glory was still visible (<a href='B:220 37:15'>Job 37:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He has defined a boundary on the surface of the waters, and to the confines of light and darkness-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> GNB "He divided light from darkness by a circle drawn on the face of the sea". Job understands that it is God who sends the good and evil, the light and the darkness, into his life (<a href='B:220 30:26'>Job 30:26</a>). Significantly, he states his faith that God even marks out the boundary between light and darkness (<a href='B:220 26:10'>Job 26:10</a>) – a similar idea in essence to the reassurance of <a href='B:290 45:5'>Isa 45:5</a> that God creates both light and darkness. The ‘darkness’, however we experience and understand it, is framed and limited by God; it is not a power or being with independent existence outside the realm of God’s power. God confirms Job’s understanding later, when He says that it is He who can swaddle the sea [another figure for uncontrollable evil] in bands of darkness (<a href='B:220 38:9'>Job 38:9</a>) – as if to say that it is God who gives things like darkness and the sea their sinister appearance and perception by men; but He is in control of them, using them in His hand. See on <a href='B:220 38:10'>Job 38:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at His rebuke-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job understood God to be in control in Heaven; he rejects the idea of a cosmic conflict going on ‘up there’ which the friends seem to allude to. More specifically, Job speaks of how God’s hand forms and can pierce the “crooked serpent” and smite any monster (<a href='B:220 26:11-14'>Job 26:11-14</a>). It’s as if Job is mocking the idea that God has let him go into the hands of the cosmic monsters which the friends believed in. For Job so often stresses that it is the “hand of God” which has brought His affliction (<a href='B:220 19:21'>Job 19:21</a>; <a href='B:220 23:2'>Job 23:2</a>). That Divine hand was far greater than any mythical ‘Satan’ figure. The theme of his speech in Job 28 is that Yahweh alone is to be feared throughout the entire cosmos. Nobody else – such as the ‘Satan’ figures alluded to by the friends – needed to be feared.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He stirs up the sea with His power, and by His understanding He strikes through Rahab-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Rahab is a term used for Babylon and so this becomes all the more relevant to the restoration context. "The sea" was understood by the contemporary people to be awfully mysterious, and a radical power in its own right. Just as Babylon and the forces arraigned against Job seemed invincible and a law to themselves. Just as we may consider we are in the hands of forces which are mysterious and too great for us to grapple with. But Job's simple faith was that God was in total control of all those things. "He stirs up the sea::." is quoted in <a href='B:290 51:15'>Isa 51:15</a> of God's power available for the exiles against Babylon.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> By His Spirit the heavens are garnished. His hand has pierced the swift serpent-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See on :11. Here the hand and Spirit of God are equated- both are Angelic phrases, and thus provides further evidence that the Angels actually performed the creation. Many passages clearly identify God’s spirit with His power. In order to create the earth, “the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light” (<a href='B:10 1:2-3'>Gen 1:2-3</a>). God’s spirit was the power by which all things, e:g. light, were made. “By His spirit He has created the heavens; His hand has formed the crooked serpent” (<a href='B:220 26:13'>Job 26:13</a>). A comparison of <a href='B:470 12:28'>Mat 12:28</a> and <a href='B:490 11:20'>Luk 11:20</a> shows that “the finger of God” and “the spirit of God” are parallel - God in action is His spirit. “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth” (<a href='B:230 33:6'>Psa 33:6</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Thus Job associates God's Spirit with His hand, which is Satan's hand. It seems far more fitting that this hand and spirit should be Angelic rather than human. Again, it was Angelic work that formed the Heavens. Job recognized that his trials came from the hand of God, but knew that His hand would not kill him- " with Thy strong hand Thou opposest Thyself against me::. howbeit He will not stretch out His hand to (bring me to) the grave" (<a href='B:220 30:21'>Job 30:21</a>; <a href='B:220 30:24'>Job 30:24</a>). This was exactly the brief given to satan- to try Job, but "preserve his life". The hand of God creating evil (<a href='B:220 2:10-11'>Job 2:10-11</a>) must surely refer to God's " Angels of evil" (<a href='B:230 78:49'>Psa 78:49</a>) rather than to man- Cyrus had to be taught that no one except God (including human satans!) created evil (<a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, these are but the outskirts of His ways. How small a whisper do we hear of Him! But the thunder of His power who can understand?- There are only some things which God makes known to us about Himself; we do not have the total truth about God, we see but parts of His ways and hear only a little portion of Him (<a href='B:220 26:14'>Job 26:14</a>). Our perception and definition of “the truth” needs to bear this in mind. Absolute truth claims aren’t simply ignorant, they lead to all manner of relationship breakdown, arrogance and deformation of spirituality both in ourselves and others. See on <a href='B:520 1:19'>Rom 1:19</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job again took up his parable and said-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In what sense is Job's pouring out of his very personal reflections about his situation "a parable"? I suggest the answer is that we are intended to understand his situation as parabolic or representative of other situations; particularly that with the exiles in Babylon, who would also be led to restoration if they followed Job's path.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As God lives, who has taken away my right-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job is specifically criticized by Elihu for saying this (<a href='B:220 34:5'>Job 34:5</a> s:w:). I have suggested that Elihu was not always specifically reflecting God's viewpoints, but instead is a literary device within the drama who serves to summarize the arguments so far delivered. "Right" is literally "judgment". Job has lamented that he sought in vain for God to meet him in judgment. But the very same phrase is used of how by grace God would 'take away Israel's judgments' in no longer condemning them (<a href='B:430 3:15'>Zep 3:15</a>). It was therefore a good thing that God did not meet Job in judgment; and by grace He was to justify Job and take away his judgment of condemnation.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The Almighty, who has made my soul bitter-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The phrase used by Hezekiah, another possible fulfilment of the suffering servant based upon Job (<a href='B:290 38:17'>Isa 38:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For the length of my life is still in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is obviously referring to the record of God's creation of Adam in <a href='B:10 2:7'>Gen 2:7</a>. See on <a href='B:220 10:9'>Job 10:9</a>; <a href='B:220 9:17'>Job 9:17</a>. Job may be wrongly suggesting he is merely suffering because he is a son of Adam, whilst personally innocent. Although in Job's case he did need to repent, his situation pointed forward to that of the Lord Jesus, the suffering servant based upon Job who was the second Adam.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> surely my lips shall not speak unrighteousness, neither shall my tongue utter deceit-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job was bending all his self will to avoid not sinning with his lips, as he is initially commended for doing (<a href='B:220 2:10'>Job 2:10</a>). But finally he is taught that for all that steel willed self control, he must lay his hand upon his mouth and realize he has not spoken rightly (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>). He may have controlled his specific words, but the general thrust of his understanding had been so badly wrong.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Far be it from me that I should justify you. Until I die I will not put away my integrity from me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The friends had specifically accused Job of things he had never done (e:g. <a href='B:220 22:5-9'>Job 22:5-9</a>). He would not justify them by saying they had been right after all; he is a great example of not taking false guilt. For in such situations, people often break down and accept guilt for what they never actually did. He held on to God's view of him which had been made clear in the prologue- that he was "perfect", of integrity, and he would not be made to feel as if that was not the case. What he had to learn was that he was after all a sinful human and that high estimation of him had been the result of imputed righteousness by grace. And he had to be taught that in God's final appearance to him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I hold fast to my righteousness, and will not let it go-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God had stated in <a href='B:220 2:3'>Job 2:3</a> that Job held fast (s:w:) to his integrity. And here Job uses this word about himself. He will not "curse God, and die". Again we have the impression that he had been present at these discussions between the Satan and God; and the view of the Satan was in fact the view now of the friends, who effectively acted as the Satan figure who had influenced their thinking. His argument against the friends, that he did maintain his integrity still, was effectively arguing back against this position of the Satan.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>"Hold fast" is the same word as in <a href='B:290 56:2'>Isa 56:2</a>: "And the son of man who holds it fast". To "hold fast" means to keep covenant (<a href='B:140 7:22'>2Ch 7:22</a>). The "it" the exiles were to hold fast to was God's righteousness and not their own (<a href='B:290 56:1'>Isa 56:1</a>). But they refused to do so because like Job, they held fast (s:w:) to their own righteousness (s:w. <a href='B:220 27:6'>Job 27:6</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>My heart shall not reproach me so long as I live-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Paul was like Job, determined to "have always a conscience void of offence, both toward God and toward man" (<a href='B:510 24:16'>Act 24:16</a>); but later he learnt the lesson of Job, and realized that although his conscience doesn't condemn him, this is not to say he is ultimately right before God (<a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a>). For the final appearance of God convicted Job of sin, of the fact that his status as "perfect" before God was by imputed righteousness through grace; and that his spotless personal conscience was not therefore the ultimate decider of his acceptability before God. Just as we must learn that at the last day, we will be judged by God's word and our conscience will not as it were jump out of us and judge us.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Job realized his sinfulness, and yet at the same time he was in a quandary over whether he really had sinned. In <a href='B:220 27:6'>Job 27:6</a> he even feels that his heart does not reproach him over any of the days he has ever lived (RV). This is such an accurate caricature of so many Christian consciences, of so much of our self-examination, both individually and collectively. We of course have to admit that we are sinners, riddled with weakness in so many ways; and of course we do admit this. And yet there is a quandary over whether we really are big time sinners. We feel ourselves to be little sinners, whatever we may theoretically admit. And as such, we fail to appreciate the grace of God's salvation, and therefore we fail to dynamically respond to this as we should do, and thereby our community and our own lives are characterized by the all too evident apathy with which they are; there is so little of the real flame, the fire of true spirituality, which there might be. And dear Job, like us, for all his good works, for all his being such a truly and really nice guy and brother, through and through::. he had to be brought down to his knees: "I am vile::. I know (now, by implication) that thou canst do everything, and that no thought can be withholden from thee::. therefore have I uttered that I understood thee; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Let my enemy be as the wicked. Let him who rises up against me be as the unrighteous-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I wonder whether this specific enemy was Eliphaz. He is singled out by God at the end (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>), and the other two friends largely repeat his arguments in their speeches. He was from Teman, the very place from where the bands of marauders had come upon Job's encampment. He was one of the sons of God of <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a> who had heard the Satan's opening arguments, and it seems he and the friends replaced the satan in the narrative; and therefore the distress brought by the satan may partly have been brought by Eliphaz and his team. He had risen up against Job, and therefore the descriptions of "the wicked" given by Job were all relevant to him and the friends.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For what is the hope of the godless, when he is cut off, when God takes away his life?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> GNB "What hope is there for the godless in the hour when God demands their life?". This appears to have been a source for the Lord's parable of the rich fool. "The godless" is AV "the hypocrite". This would be so true of the friends if indeed they were the ones behind Job's loss of cattle at the hand of the Bedouin tribesmen.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Will God hear his cry when trouble comes on him?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> <a href='B:220 27:9-10'>Job 27:9-10</a> seems to be saying [although the Hebrew text is rather obscure] that every man on his deathbed cries to God in some kind of prayer; but a belief in the mortality of man will result in the righteous man having lived a life of prayerful crying to the Father, which will be in context with his final cry to God in his time of dying. The final truth was that God did not hear the cry of the friends- but He asks Job to pray for them, and He heard Job's cry for them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Will he delight himself in the Almighty, and call on God at all times?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :9, "at all times" means that the wicked only cry to God on their deathbeds and not "at all times" in their lifetimes. The exiles like Job were to finally 'delight themselves' in God at the restoration, if they followed Job's path (s:w. <a href='B:290 58:14'>Isa 58:14</a>). But Job is saying that whilst sinners refuse to repent, then they can never do this; and that was the fate of the exiles.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I will teach you about the hand of God. That which is with the Almighty will I not conceal-</p><h4> See on <a href='B:220 6:10'>Job 6:10</a>. Some consider that there is textual corruption in Job, and <a href='B:220 27:11-23'>Job 27:11-23</a> are Zophar's apparently missing third speech. But I would argue otherwise, apart from a dislike of positing textual corruption in order to explain away what may otherwise be hard of explanation. The speech of Job recorded in Job 26-31 is the longest in the book. The pattern of each of the three friends giving a speech and Job replying, spread over three speeches, appears to slightly break down in that Zophar doesn't give his third speech. We note that Bildad's final speech was very brief, and was really only quoting previous words from Eliphaz (Job 25). This could all create the intentional impression in the drama that the friends were running out of steam in their arguments. Job now makes a very long speech::. but that is not his victory nor justification. That is only provided by God's appearance at the end, when Job repents of his words. It is usual for the genre of drama to play with audience expectation and dash it to make a point. That is what is happening here, with Bildad's final speech really a flop, and Zophar not giving the speech which the structure of the drama requires him to make. And we are also led to expect Job's final long speech to be his justification, seeing most of what he says is true in itself. But this too is a dashed expectation; for God appears and condemns them all, and then justifies Job by grace.</h4>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, all of you have seen it yourselves; why then have you become altogether vain?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They had been present at the opening dialogue with the Satan; and so they had 'seen' that Satan's hand was God's hand (:11). But they had not retained that in their knowledge, and had become vain in that they had come to argue and reason from a purely secular, Godless perspective.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is the portion of a wicked man with God, the heritage of oppressors, which they receive from the Almighty-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The "this" refers to the description of the fate of the wicked which we now have in :13-23. Nearly all the descriptions have reference to Job's own experience. But his point is that he the righteous is suffering exactly the judgment of the wicked; he is now starting to realize that his sufferings were on behalf of others, even perhaps of the friends. And this comes to final term when at the end, he becomes their saviour, by grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If his children are multiplied, it is for the sword. His offspring shall not be satisfied with bread-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Seeing his own children had been destroyed by the sword, Job presumably was accepting that he was among the "wicked", as he does elsewhere (e:g. <a href='B:220 9:2'>Job 9:2</a>). <a href='B:350 9:13'>Hos 9:13</a>; <a href='B:350 9:16'>Hos 9:16</a> repeats such language regarding the punishment of sinful Israel: "Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer". <a href='B:50 28:41'>Deu 28:41</a> has the same idea.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Those who remain of him shall be buried in death. His widows shall make no lamentation-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Alluding to how Job's wife turned against him and was making no lamentation over his grief.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Though he heap up silver as the dust, and prepare clothing as the clay-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The sense is "Even if he::." had done these things. Job clearly has himself in view (see on :13), hence his conditional language (also in :17).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> he may prepare it, but the just shall put it on, and the innocent shall divide the silver-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The friends insisted Job was not innocent (s:w. <a href='B:220 4:7'>Job 4:7</a>). Job said he was. So he recognizes that whilst it appears that his wealth is being taken away by others because he has sinned, there will yet come a day when he is justified, and 'divides the silver'; and he as the innocent (<a href='B:220 9:23'>Job 9:23</a>) will condemn his hypocritical friends (<a href='B:220 17:8'>Job 17:8</a>). It was perhaps in recognition of this that those who had once rejected him come and give him silver (<a href='B:220 42:11'>Job 42:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He builds his house as the moth, as a booth which the watchman makes-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again Job refers to himself (<a href='B:220 4:19'>Job 4:19</a>; <a href='B:220 13:28'>Job 13:28</a>), recognizing that indeed he is suffering the judgment of the sinner, whilst personally righteous. Being consumed by a moth was to be the fate of apostate Israel (s:w. <a href='B:290 50:9'>Isa 50:9</a>; <a href='B:290 51:8'>Isa 51:8</a>). But they could follow the path of Job to restoration, despite feeling and being condemned to death.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He lies down rich, but he shall not do so again. He opens his eyes, and he is not-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Perhaps as GNB "One last time they will lie down rich, and when they wake up, they will find their wealth gone".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Terrors overtake him like waters. A storm steals him away in the night-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> A reference to the terrors or panic attacks which Job complained of (<a href='B:220 6:4'>Job 6:4</a>; <a href='B:220 31:23'>Job 31:23</a>), and the whirlwind storm which had suddenly taken away Job's family and wealth.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The east wind carries him away, and he departs. It sweeps him out of his place-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job felt he too had been swept out of his place (<a href='B:220 7:10'>Job 7:10</a>). The wind from the east was the wind which swept in out of the wilderness to destroy Job (<a href='B:220 1:19'>Job 1:19</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For it hurls at him, and does not spare, as he flees away from his hand-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> AV "For God shall cast upon him, and not spare: he would fain flee out of his hand". Zophar claims that Job was going to flee from the arrow of Divine judgment, but would all the same be struck through by it (<a href='B:220 20:24-25'>Job 20:24-25</a>). God's response was that His creatures didn't flee from His arrows (s:w. <a href='B:220 41:28'>Job 41:28</a>). Neither did Job flee from God, although he wanted to (see AV); he was in harmony with the natural creation. Zophar was wrong. Job didn't flee from God but quite the opposite- he keeps begging God to reveal Himself, and He does so at the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Men shall clap their hands at him, and shall hiss him out of his place- It was the friends who did this to Job, just as Zion's abusers did to her (<a href='B:310 2:15'>Lam 2:15</a> s:w:), hissing her into captivity (<a href='B:300 19:8'>Jer 19:8</a>). Again, Job is presented as bearing the judgments of God's apostate people, who were also moved out of their place into exile.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Surely there is a mine for silver, and a place for gold which they refine-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job in chapter 28 prides himself on his appreciation, as he thought, of God’s hand in creation, and how creation reveals the greatness of God. But at the end he was taught that what he thought he so appreciated, he really didn’t; and he learnt the true knowledge of God. Unclean animals are brought to his attention in Job 39; he then repents in <a href='B:220 40:2-4'>Job 40:2-4</a>, as if he finally saw in them symbols of himself. And then chapters 40 and 41 go on to speak of the joy of clean animals in their relationship with God, and the inability of man to come between them and their maker. &nbsp;The theme of his speech in Job 28 is that Yahweh alone is to be feared throughout the entire cosmos. Nobody else – such as the ‘Satan’ figures alluded to by the friends – needed to be feared. Job understood God to be in control in Heaven; he rejects the idea of a cosmic conflict going on ‘up there’ which the friends seem to allude to. More specifically, Job speaks of how God’s hand forms and can pierce the “crooked serpent” and smite any monster (<a href='B:220 26:11-14'>Job 26:11-14</a>). It’s as if Job is mocking the idea that God has let him go into the hands of the cosmic monsters which the friends believed in. For Job so often stresses that it is the “hand of God” which has brought His affliction (<a href='B:220 19:21'>Job 19:21</a>; <a href='B:220 23:2'>Job 23:2</a>). That Divine hand was far greater than any mythical ‘Satan’ figure.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Iron is taken out of the earth, and copper is smelted out of the ore-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is leading up to Job's contrast with the way that wisdom cannot be found by as it were mining the earth, and then processing what has been taken out. These reflections lead him to be ready for God's final appearance, announcing that grace is indeed a gift, and it is not so much knowing God as God knowing us which is so critical (<a href='B:550 4:9'>Gal 4:9</a>). And theoretical knowledge and human wisdom play little part in that. All the extraction and processing of such knowledge will not lead us to personal relationship with Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Man sets an end to darkness, and searches out, to the furthest bound of thick darkness, in order to find the stones of obscurity-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Darkness" is a term often used in the dialogues about what Job was enduring. Man, and the reference is to the friends, thinks he can understand it right to the ends of that darkness. But he can't. Only God can (:27):&nbsp;The darkness of Job's trials and their limit was to be defined by God alone, as made clear in the prologue. The finding of some obscure nugget of truth is therefore irrelevant compared to realizing that God has set far wider horizons that man has set himself.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He breaks open a shaft away from where people live. They are forgotten by the foot walking above. They hang far from men, they swing back and forth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is a picture of ancient mining, with men descending shafts on ropes in desperate search for precious nuggets (:3). Again, Job's point is that wisdom cannot be found by as it were mining the earth, and then processing what has been taken out. All the extraction and processing of such knowledge will not lead us to personal relationship with God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As for the earth, out of it comes bread; underneath it is turned up as it were by fire-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This could be saying (in line with :2-4) that mining can be dangerous; under the earth is fire, and man is best to use the surface of the earth to grow bread. The whole enterprise of mining is being contrasted to man's search for meaning and knowledge. Job is not as it were anti intellectual, but is coming to appreciate that relationship with God is beyond mere nuggets of knowledge, "stones of obscurity" (:3) strung together. And this is confirmed when God finally appears and condemns the wisdom of the friends. See on :11.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Sapphires come from its rocks. It has dust of gold-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job doesn't doubt that great beauty and value can indeed be mined. See on :2-5. But his point is that there is another set of values, invisible to the naked eye (:7), which is experience with God when we have a clear conscience (:28). Or the idea may be that there is gold that can be found on the surface without mining, and sapphires are found in alluvial soil embedded in gneiss on the surface, and not by mining. Perhaps the idea is that mining isn't needed to find nuggets of 'truth' but rather gathering what is on the surface of life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> That path no bird of prey knows, neither has the falcon’s eye seen it-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The pagan peoples thought that birds had the gift of divination and wisdom. Again, as so often in Job, there is a deconstruction of popular beliefs in order to demonstrate the utter supremacy of God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The proud animals have not trodden it, nor has the fierce lion passed by there-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "The proud animals" are literally a pride of lions. Physical strength and reputation will not bring one to the wisdom of relationship with God which the argument climaxes with in :28.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He puts forth his hand on the flinty rock, and he overturns the mountains by the roots-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The "he" could be wisdom personified, or the reference could be to God. For He alone can overturn mountain roots. This section of the argument concludes in :12 "But where shall wisdom be found?". God can upturn mountains for us to look underneath, but still we will not find wisdom. Because wisdom is not knowledge which can be dug out and processed as if by the mining enterprise; rather is it live relationship with God which is of the essence (:28).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He cuts out channels among the rocks. His eye sees every precious thing-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :9, God can reveal everything physical, if He wishes. But man will still not find "wisdom" if he is searching for it as a 'physical' thing, obtained by a process of mining and subsequent refining. That reveals merely "stones of obscurity" (:3), nuggets of isolated truth. This message needs to be heeded by those who consider the Christian duty is to search out academic truth, mining it from the pages of the Bible and further processing it. This of itself is not to be despised, but this can be done as the Pharisees did it, and as the friends did- without coming to the awesome personal encounter with God and His grace with which the book of Job concludes.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He binds the streams that they don’t trickle. The thing that is hidden he brings forth to light-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is the same argument as explained on :10. God can dry up the streams so that those panning in them thigh deep for precious stones- find them. He can bring them to light, but this is not the same thing as the "wisdom" of personal relationship with Him and departing from evil in our hearts (:28). This is what was happening on Job's life; God was 'bringing forth' light from death, deep things from darkness (s:w. <a href='B:220 12:22'>Job 12:22</a>). And this was realized by God bringing it forth, and not man's search for 'truth'. Job as a person was to be 'brought forth' by God as gold from that fire of affliction (<a href='B:220 23:10'>Job 23:10</a> s:w:). Just as plants are 'brought forth' from the earth without the need for mining under the earth (<a href='B:220 28:5'>Job 28:5</a> s:w:). This is why God's reply to Job keeps on using this word for 'bring forth', labouring the point that God 'brings forth' by His processes and initiatives, and not man. And that is as a code stamped upon all of creation (<a href='B:220 38:8'>Job 38:8</a>; <a href='B:220 38:29'>Job 38:29</a>; <a href='B:220 38:32'>Job 38:32</a>; <a href='B:220 39:4'>Job 39:4</a>; <a href='B:220 39:21'>Job 39:21</a>; <a href='B:220 41:20-21'>Job 41:20-21</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But where shall wisdom be found?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Found" is the word used of how Job sought to "probe" (AV "find out") the Almighty (<a href='B:220 23:3'>Job 23:3</a>; <a href='B:220 28:12'>Job 28:12</a>), whereas Elihu appears to agree with Zophar that "the Almighty" cannot be 'found' (<a href='B:220 11:7'>Job 11:7</a>; <a href='B:220 37:23'>Job 37:23</a>). God's own appearance at the end is perhaps an answer to this. He cannot be 'found out' by intellectual argument or personal righteousness. Instead, He 'finds out' people and saves them by grace. Paul expresses the same idea when he writes that it is not so much a case of man 'knowing God', but rather of being "known of God" by grace (<a href='B:550 4:9'>Gal 4:9</a>):&nbsp;See on :9-12:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Where is the place of understanding?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The origin of "wisdom" is simply from God; it has no location on planet earth, no holy place somewhere which can be visited and wisdom obtained there; it is from Him rather than being mined and processed by man:&nbsp;This would have been relevant to the "sons of God" of <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>, Job and his friends, who apparently regularly came to a defined place for worship and instruction.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Man doesn’t know its price; neither is it found in the land of the living-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The wisdom of true relationship with God (:28) cannot be bought with money (see on :15). It can only be found beyond "the land of the living", which implies 'in death'. Job believed that his final justification and restored relationship with God could only come through his death and subsequent resurrection. And he, along with Hezekiah and later the captives in Babylon, had to pass through a living death to get to that point. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The deep says, ‘It isn’t in me’. The sea says, ‘It isn’t with me’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Hum ["the deep / abyss"] and yam ["the sea"] are references to the monsters supposed to live there, much feared by the folk of Job's day. Believing in them and trying to appease them by sacrifice (think of the casting of Jonah into the sea) wouldn't reveal wisdom. That was in repentance and relationship with God (:28), as the story of Jonah also demonstrates.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> It can’t be gotten for gold, neither shall silver be weighed for its price-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The same phrase translated as "without money and without price" is found in <a href='B:290 55:1'>Isa 55:1</a> as to how the greatest wisdom was to leave Babylon / Persia and return to Judah, with all the inversion of values this required. The book of Job is full of connections to Isaiah, as it was rewritten to encourage the exiles in captivity.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> It can’t be valued with the gold of Ophir, with the precious onyx, or the sapphire-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Earlier in this chapter, Job has contrasted man's mining for precious stones on his initiative with God's working upon man to give him, by grace, something more precious- relationship with Him. Gold, onyx and sapphire were all stones in the Mosaic breastplate, and this is perhaps also be understood as an oblique reference to how the Mosaic system couldn't of itself bring about that relationship with God which is the true wisdom.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Gold and glass can’t equal it, neither shall it be exchanged for jewels of fine gold-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Once a man comes to the true wisdom of relationship with God with a pure conscience by His grace (:28), he will never want to exchange it. This is the sense likewise of <a href='B:240 23:23'>Pro 23:23</a> "Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding". "The truth", true understanding, is not a series of isolated academic truths mined and processed by man (see on :3-6). It refers to relationship with God. Many Christians obsessed with 'finding the truth' have yet to realize this.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> No mention shall be made of coral or of crystal. Yes, the price of wisdom is above rubies-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The words of <a href='B:220 28:18'>Job 28:18</a> are repeatedly quoted in Proverbs (<a href='B:240 3:15'>Pro 3:15</a>; <a href='B:240 8:11'>Pro 8:11</a>; <a href='B:240 20:15'>Pro 20:15</a>). "Wisdom" in Proverbs refers not so much to nuggets of truth, but to a way of life in relationship with God; for that is the context in the source passage in <a href='B:220 28:18'>Job 28:18</a> cp. 28.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The topaz of Ethiopia shall not equal it, neither shall it be valued with pure gold-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Equal" is the word used to the exiles in <a href='B:290 40:18'>Isa 40:18</a>, where they are told that "God" has no equal. But I suggest in that context we must read in an ellipsis; 'relationship with God' cannot be equalled. It is totally inappropriate to compare it to human strength of any category.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Where then does wisdom come from? Where is the place of understanding?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The origin of "wisdom" is simply from God; it has no location on planet earth, no holy place somewhere which can be visited and wisdom obtained there; it is from Him rather than being mined and processed by man. This would have been relevant to the "sons of God" of <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>, Job and his friends, who apparently regularly came to a defined place for worship and instruction.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Seeing it is hidden from the eyes of all living, and kept close from the birds of the sky-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The wisdom of true relationship with God and restoration by grace (:28) cannot be discerned by the human senses. The naked eye cannot perceive it. Thus Job is coming closer to the New Testament teaching about the Spirit, which the exiles were also taught in <a href='B:290 64:4'>Isa 64:4</a>: "::. neither has the eye seen::. what He has prepared for him who waits for Him", to the end of the 70 year period of exile. These words are applied to all in our age who receive the Spirit (<a href='B:530 2:9'>1Co 2:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Destruction and Death say, ‘We have heard a rumour of it with our ears’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :13, Job believed that through death he would thence ultimately pass to a bodily resurrection and restored relationship with God. In this sense, therefore, death has a rumour of this wisdom which nothing in the world of the living can have. A true sense of our mortality will lead to our prayerful, urgent contact with the Father all our days. Thus destruction and death give insight into the true wisdom.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God understands its way, and He knows its place-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Just as there is a sense in the natural creation that things such as the dawn have a specific "place" known by God alone (<a href='B:220 38:12'>Job 38:12</a> s:w:), so the way of true relationship with Him, "wisdom", is known by Him alone. We do not find that "place" by intellectual effort, searching hither and thither, but by being open to God's leading of us as Job was.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For He looks to the ends of the earth, and sees under the whole sky-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The implication may be that man sees only what is before his face, whereas God has an infinitely wider perspective. Job in his intense suffering is to be commended for realizing this; for physical pain tends to make the sufferer focus only upon the immediate.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He establishes the force of the wind. Yes, He measures out the waters by measure-</p><h4> This is quoted in <a href='B:290 40:12'>Isa 40:12</a> as encouragement to the exiles; the power of wind and waters, both representative of God's judgments for sin, are totally under His control. They are measured, the exile period would come to a defined end, just as Job's sufferings did.</h4>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> When He made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This "decree" for the rain is the word used of how the waters are "bounded" (<a href='B:220 26:10'>Job 26:10</a>), just as Job's sufferings were "appointed" or 'bounded' (<a href='B:220 23:14'>Job 23:14</a>), as the sufferings of the exiles were also time limited. The idea may be that when that 'bound' of the rain and darkness is reached, the end of the appointed suffering, then we find the wisdom of true relationship with God. He has set it there (:27), at that point. And that is the true wisdom, which we are led to and arrive at, rather than seeking to mine it out in human strength and enterprise.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> then He saw it, and declared it. He established it, yes, and searched it out-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See on :3. In <a href='B:220 13:9'>Job 13:9</a> Job asks the friends: "Is it good that He should search you out? Or as one deceives a man, will you deceive Him?". The idea seems to be that if God searched out the friends, they would have to try to deceive Him, lest He find the truth about them. But Job later realizes that God does indeed search out all things (s:w. <a href='B:220 28:27'>Job 28:27</a>). He begins here by saying that if He were to search things out, He would not find a nice scene in the hearts of the friends. But Job moves on to realize that indeed this is what God is doing, on a cosmic scale- searching out all things.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> To man He said, ‘Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom. To depart from evil is understanding’- Wisdom is thereby presented as essentially being experience of God and relationship with Him. Wisdom is not found by going to a certain location, to a guru here or a holy book there, digging like miners dig, in search of it. It is experience with God, and all the things summarized in "the fear of the Lord". Job was aware it seems of God's estimation that he had indeed "turned away from evil" and feared God (<a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a> s:w:); it was those things, rather than the traditional wisdom of the friends, which he came to see was the true "understanding".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Oh that I were as in the months of old, as in the days when God watched over me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> That Job was indeed depressed can be seen by the vast number of times Job speaks of "I" or "myself". There are some 40 occurrences of these words in Chapter 29 alone. "Watched over" is the same word used for how God had set the parameters for Job's trials in the prologue; his life was to be preserved (s:w:, <a href='B:220 2:6'>Job 2:6</a>). But Job like the friends became obsessed with immediate suffering and issues to the point that he overlooked these basic parameters set by God. We can do the same. He complains that God watches over him too closely (<a href='B:220 13:6'>Job 13:6</a>; <a href='B:220 33:11'>Job 33:11</a> s:w:), and yet complains that God isn't watching over him (<a href='B:220 29:2'>Job 29:2</a>). God's response is to direct him again to the natural creation, where God's constant 'watching over' His creation is evident. He even watches over the exact gestation time of mountain goats, who were invisible to human eyes (<a href='B:220 39:1'>Job 39:1</a> s:w:). And likewise Job was to understand that the time of his sufferings, like the period of exile for the captives, was likewise intensely noted by God and had not been forgotten.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> when His lamp shone on my head, and by His light I walked through darkness-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job had experienced the darkness of trial before (see on <a href='B:220 3:26'>Job 3:26</a>), but felt he had been led by God's light through the darkness. This walking in darkness was exactly the experience of an apostate Israel (s:w. <a href='B:290 9:2'>Isa 9:2</a>; <a href='B:290 59:9'>Isa 59:9</a>; <a href='B:310 3:2'>Lam 3:2</a>). Job understandably struggles with being treated as wicked, and under judgment for serious sin; when he knew he was "perfect" in God's eyes, according to the prologue. And at this point he appears to be on the pole of focusing upon his being judged for sin which he hadn't committed. But this was all because he was suffering as representative of sinners, as the Lord Jesus did to a far greater extent, seeing He unlike Job was actually sinless.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> as I was in the ripeness of my days, when the friendship of God was in my tent-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Friendship" is 'secret'. Job was a prophet (<a href='B:220 29:4'>Job 29:4</a> cp. 15:8;&nbsp; 23:12; <a href='B:240 3:32'>Pro 3:32</a>; <a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a>; the secret of God being with him made Job a prophet) and it is in his role as such that he is commended in <a href='B:660 5:10-11'>Jas 5:10-11</a> - i:e. for the words concerning God which he spoke. The words for which God and Elihu rebuked him were perhaps therefore about other things. We can conclude from this that the gift of prophecy had been withdrawn from Job whilst he was passing through his affliction, and something similar happened with the exiles; the sun went down on their prophets (<a href='B:400 3:6'>Mic 3:6</a>), but that didn't mean that the previous prophetic words of restoration would not come true for them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> when the Almighty was yet with me, and my children were around me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The same phrase is found in <a href='B:220 6:4'>Job 6:4</a>, "the arrows of the Almighty are with me". Job is struggling to accept that the presence of God "with" him was manifest through his afflictions, just as much as it had been in God's more visible, tangible presence with him he had experienced in the past.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> when my steps were washed with butter, and the rock poured out streams of oil for me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Loss of the blessings of oil and butter makes Job representative of an Israel who lost those blessings through their rebellion (<a href='B:50 28:40'>Deu 28:40</a>; <a href='B:50 28:51'>Deu 28:51</a>; <a href='B:50 32:13-14'>Deu 32:13-14</a>). Again and again we see Job set up as representative of God's people, and achieving the salvation of his friends through suffering for their sins whilst innocent (see on <a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a>). The whole story of Job is designed to encourage Israel's faith in a representative saviour, the Lord Jesus, who bore the judgment for their sins whilst personally sinless.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> when I went forth to the city gate, when I prepared my seat in the street-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job recalls in great detail his former greatness, and laments his loss of power. This is all absolutely credible and appropriate to a real historical male figure who was cast down from a position of power and respect.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The young men saw me and hid themselves. The aged rose up and stood-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The fact those older than Job respected him is perhaps an oblique self justification against the idea of the friends that the wisdom of the aged condemned Job.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The princes refrained from talking, and laid their hand on their mouth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job was later to be the one who laid his hand upon his mouth (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>). In this part of the dialogues, Job seems to come very low. He is consumed with self pity and regret concerning the power and prestige he has lost.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The voice of the nobles was hushed, and their tongue stuck to the roof of their mouth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> By implication, Job's voice was now hushed and his tongue stuck to the roof of his dried mouth, just as was to happen to the Lord Jesus, the ultimate suffering servant after the pattern of Job (<a href='B:230 22:15'>Psa 22:15</a>), and to a condemned Israel (<a href='B:310 4:4'>Lam 4:4</a>). Ezekiel passed through the same experience (<a href='B:330 3:26'>Eze 3:26</a>), again as a representative sufferer for the sake of Israel's sins- likewise in an attempt to save them by bearing the judgment of their sins:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For when the ear heard me, then it blessed me; and when the eye saw me, it commended me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job in his depths came to know God as his “witness in heaven” (<a href='B:220 16:19'>Job 16:19</a>); in his former life, “when the eye saw me, it gave witness [s:w:] to me” (<a href='B:220 29:11'>Job 29:11</a>). But Job was brought to learn that the only ultimate witness in life is God, and it is His testimony and not man’s which is meaningful. He confesses that he had only heard of God by the ear, and only upon recognizing his humanity did he 'see' God (<a href='B:220 42:5'>Job 42:5</a>). The fact others' eyes and ears had seen and heard him with respect was to become of no value to him at all.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> because I delivered the poor who cried, and the fatherless also, who had none to help him-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Bildad assumes Job must have done the very opposite, to deserve his sufferings (<a href='B:220 20:19'>Job 20:19</a>). Job engages with what Bildad says and denies it (<a href='B:220 29:12'>Job 29:12</a>; <a href='B:220 31:17'>Job 31:17</a>). Again we note that Job engages with the actual words of the friends, whereas they tend to attack him in terms of the straw man image of him they had built up in their minds, ignoring him as a person and the actual words he says. This is typical of how dialogue goes wrong.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Job feels he has 'cried out' to God for justice and not been heard (<a href='B:220 19:7'>Job 19:7</a>; <a href='B:220 30:20'>Job 30:20</a>); and that there is nothing wrong with crying out to God in distress, it is a perfectly natural reaction (<a href='B:220 24:12'>Job 24:12</a>). One comment upon this is that the young ravens cry out to God for food and yet are not always heard (<a href='B:220 38:41'>Job 38:41</a> s:w:). But God in the wider picture sustains all of creation by grace. Job did well to cry out to God even if there was no answer, because the hypocrites do not 'cry out' to God when they are facing judgment (<a href='B:220 36:13'>Job 36:13</a> s:w:). Job feels hurt that God has not responded to his 'crying out' because he says that when the needy cried out to him, he had heard (<a href='B:220 29:12'>Job 29:12</a> s:w:). But here we see his works based approach; he thought that his response to those who cried out to him meant that therefore God must respond to his crying out. And God is not so primitive. His apparent silence is because His response is not predicated upon human works and charity. It is by grace alone, as is taught in His final appearance to Job. The exiles likewise were to finally see the response to their crying out to God in the restoration (<a href='B:290 58:9'>Isa 58:9</a>), just as their representative Jonah cried out to God from the belly of sheol amidst the sea of nations, and was heard (s:w. <a href='B:390 2:2'>Jon 2:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> the blessing of him who was ready to perish came on me, and I caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy (by his charity). I (thereby) put on righteousness, and it clothed me: my judgement was as a robe and a diadem" (29:13,14). This has clear reference to the clothing of the Mosaic High Priest with his outward show of righteousness. Job was probably the family priest, seeing that the head of the household appears to have been the priest in patriarchal times; thus Job could offer a sacrifice for the sins of his children (<a href='B:220 1:5'>Job 1:5</a>). Job's likening of himself to a moth-eaten garment due to God's changing of his circumstances (<a href='B:220 13:26-28'>Job 13:26-28</a>) must connect with the disciples of the Law as an old, decaying garment in <a href='B:650 8:13'>Heb 8:13</a>. The priestly clothing " for glory and for beauty" (<a href='B:20 28:2'>Exo 28:2</a>) is certainly alluded to by God when He challenges Job "Deck thyself now (i:e. like you used to) with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty::. then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee" (<a href='B:220 40:10'>Job 40:10</a>; <a href='B:220 40:14'>Job 40:14</a>)- as if God is saying that Job's previous life represented the Mosaic priestly system with its external pomp and implication that ones own righteousness can bring salvation ("that thine own right hand can save thee"). Job's humiliation meant that, by implication, he no longer felt able to clothe himself with the priestly garments of glory and beauty; he had learnt the spirit of the Christian dispensation, to trust on the grace of God rather than a system of salvation depending on personal righteousness. The descriptions of Job rending his "mantle" (priestly robes) recalls that of Caiaphas; his falling on his face perhaps&nbsp;&nbsp;indicates his recognition that reliance on the outward show of the Law needed to be replaced by humble faith. Job thus described his experiences as God leading "priests away stripped" of their robes (<a href='B:220 12:19'>Job 12:19</a> N:I:V:).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I put on righteousness, and it clothed me. My justice was as a robe and a diadem-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This would mean that his merciful acts to the poor were done in a 'charitable' spirit, thinking that such public acts declared him outwardly righteous: "I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy (by his charity). I (thereby) put on righteousness, and it clothed me: my judgement was as a robe and a diadem" (<a href='B:220 29:13-14'>Job 29:13-14</a> AV):&nbsp;And yet Job's words of <a href='B:220 30:1'>Job 30:1</a> certainly smack of arrogance: "Whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the dogs of my flock". His charity was done to some whilst despising others and judging them. This works based, judgmental righteousness can so easily be our weakness. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I was eyes to the blind, and feet to the lame-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is quoted in Romans 2. It is in the context of Paul's rebuke of the Jews in <a href='B:520 2:17-23'>Rom 2:17-23</a> for their reliance on a mixture of worldly wisdom and the Mosaic law. The passage has many similarities with Job: ""Thou art called a Jew::. and makest thy boast of God, and knowest His&nbsp;will, and triest the things that&nbsp;differ (AVmg:) ["Doth &nbsp;not the ear try words?" (<a href='B:220 12:11'>Job 12:11</a>)], being instructed&nbsp;out&nbsp;of the law [A fair description of Job before his trials]::. and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of&nbsp;them which are in darkness ["I was eyes to the blind" (<a href='B:220 29:15'>Job 29:15</a>)], an instructor of the foolish, a&nbsp;teacher&nbsp;of babes, which hast the form of&nbsp;knowledge and of the truth in&nbsp;the law:::&nbsp;Thou therefore which teachest&nbsp;another,&nbsp;teachest thou not thyself? ["Thou hast instructed many::. thy words have upholden him that was falling::. but now it is come upon thee, and thou faintest" (<a href='B:220 4:3-5'>Job 4:3-5</a>)]. Thou that preachest a man&nbsp;should not&nbsp;steal::. commit adultery:::&nbsp;(worship)&nbsp;idols::. dost thou? [These were the three main things of which the friends accused Job]. Thou that makest thy boast of&nbsp;the Law,&nbsp;through breaking the Law&nbsp;dishonourest&nbsp;thou God?" [Elihu, on God's behalf, says that Job's boasting of his righteousness implied God was doing wickedly in punishing Job (<a href='B:220 34:10'>Job 34:10</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Their belief that they possessed such great wisdom led the Jews to be self-righteous, in that they reasoned that if they were wicked, then their wisdom would reveal this to them. Job and the Jews were in this sense similar. But as ever, Job is being set up as representative of sinful Israel, bearing their judgments (see on :3,6); and yet personally innocent.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I was a father to the needy. The cause of him who I didn’t know, I searched out-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> It is one thing to meet needs which come right before our face on life's path; but Job went beyond that, in searching out the needs of others. "The cause" could be legal language; Job expected his legal case against God and man to be upheld, because he has taken the side of others in legal matters and upheld the downtrodden. But again, we have here a legalistic attitude. He expects better from life right now, because of his previous good deeds. He has at this point forgotten his conclusions about a future recompense at a point of future resurrection and judgment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I broke the jaws of the unrighteous, and plucked the prey out of his teeth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This suggests Job was proactive in even orchestrating physical punishment and violence against the wicked. But now he feels as if he is the prey within the teeth of his abusers and of God Himself. Again, he expects better from life right now, because of his previous good deeds. He has at this point forgotten his conclusions about a future recompense at a point of future resurrection and judgment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Then I said, ‘I shall die in my own house, I shall number my days as the sand-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job lived in patriarchal times, and so we can legitimately detect here an allusion to the promises to Abraham of a seed as numerous as the sand. Job had thought that the promises spoke of a long life in this world. He was to come to realize that they rather spoke of eternal inheritance of the earth at a future point, thanks to the work of Abraham's great seed, the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> My root is spread out to the waters. The dew lies all night on my branch-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This connects with the thought of Job's words in <a href='B:220 14:8'>Job 14:8</a>: "Though its root grows old in the earth, and its stock dies in the ground". "Earth" is eretz, the land (of Israel). If merely "soil" was intended, a different word would have been used. Again, we see the drama of Job has been tweaked, under Divine inspiration, to become the narrative for the exiles. The root had indeed largely died in the land at the time of the Babylonian invasion, but it still had some life and would "bud" again (<a href='B:220 14:9'>Job 14:9</a>). Job was the man with great roots who had been cut down but hadn't completely died (<a href='B:220 8:17'>Job 8:17</a>); his roots had been dried up (<a href='B:220 18:16'>Job 18:16</a>; <a href='B:220 29:19'>Job 29:19</a>). He represented Judah, whose roots were throughout the land as a tree transplanted by God (s:w. <a href='B:230 80:9'>Psa 80:9</a>). Those roots were withered by the invasions (<a href='B:290 5:24'>Isa 5:24</a>), but out of those dry roots would grow up a "tender plant / branch" (<a href='B:290 11:1'>Isa 11:1</a>; <a href='B:290 11:10'>Isa 11:10</a>; <a href='B:290 53:2'>Isa 53:2</a>), using the same word for "tender" as in <a href='B:220 14:7'>Job 14:7</a>. This Messianic suffering servant was to be based upon Job, and representative of all God's restored people. They were to again spread their roots in the land of promise in a restored Kingdom (<a href='B:290 37:31'>Isa 37:31</a>; <a href='B:300 17:8'>Jer 17:8</a>), after the pattern of Job's restoration.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> My glory is fresh in me. My bow is renewed in my hand’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Perhaps as GNB "Everyone was always praising me, and my strength never failed me". Job's bow or strength was however broken, just as Israel's was (<a href='B:350 1:5'>Hos 1:5</a>); he was their representative.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Men listened to me, waited, and kept silence for my counsel-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> We note the parallel with how Elihu on God's behalf listened, waited, and only then spoke (<a href='B:220 32:4'>Job 32:4</a>). Job was to be taught that the fact men listened, waited and kept silence before him needed to be reversed; so that he would wait, listen and keep silence before God, laying his hand upon his mouth (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> After my words they didn’t speak again. My speech fell on them-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is what happened at the end of the book; God's speech through Elihu fell upon Job, and after God's words Job didn't want to speak again (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>). Job was to be taught that it was God's word and greatness and not his which was of the essence.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They waited for me as for the rain. Their mouths drank as with the spring rain-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job was to realize that men should wait for God's word as the rain, and the latter rain of His blessings. Job had previously functioned as those blessings for men, and he was to realize the utter insignificance of this. For he needed Divine blessing and grace, rather than being an apparent provider of that blessing to others. All his good works were therefore given a quite different context when he was made to realize his need for blessing. GNB "they had nothing to add when I had finished. My words sank in like drops of rain;&nbsp;everyone welcomed them just as farmers welcome rain in spring" (:22,23).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I smiled on them when they had no confidence. They didn’t reject the light of my face-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> GNB "I smiled on them when they had lost confidence; my cheerful face encouraged them". But Job was to realize that it was God's face smiling upon man which was the only important thing; the smiling of man's face upon man was therefore of no account compared to that.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I chose out their way, and sat as chief. I lived as a king in the army, as one who comforts the mourners- Job was to realize that it was God and not him who chooses out the way of men (<a href='B:230 25:12'>Psa 25:12</a>); like Job, the exiles failed through choosing out their own way (s:w. <a href='B:290 66:3'>Isa 66:3</a>) rather than seeking God's way.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But now those who are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to put with my sheep dogs-</p><h4> Job has just boasted of how his charitable giving earned him his righteousness: "I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy (by his charity). I (thereby) put on righteousness, and it clothed me: my judgement was as a robe and a diadem" (<a href='B:220 29:13-14'>Job 29:13-14</a> AV):&nbsp;And yet Job's words of <a href='B:220 30:1'>Job 30:1</a> certainly smack of arrogance. His charity was done to some whilst despising others and judging them. This works based, judgmental righteousness can so easily be our weakness.</h4>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Of what use is the strength of their hands to me, men in whom ripe age has perished?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Here in :2-9 we have a rather unpleasant streak in Job revealed. He clearly despised some men deeply, and it was deeply irksome to him that the children of those he had despised should now mock him. The way he speaks of these men indicates a deep disdain which is inappropriate in any man for other men, who are all made in the image of God. GNB "They were a bunch of worn-out men, too weak to do any work for me". Here we see the importance Job placed upon "work"; for it was also by works that he felt justified before God, and deserving of a better deal in life than what he was having. His finer insights into his sufferings are now absent, as he walls in the self pity of the moment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They are gaunt from lack and famine. They gnaw the dry ground, in the gloom of waste and desolation-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Waste and desolation" is the language of condemnation (s:w. <a href='B:430 1:15'>Zep 1:15</a>). But God makes the point that He sends rain "to satisfy the desolate and waste ground" (<a href='B:220 38:27'>Job 38:27</a> AV)- the very place where the condemned lived whom Job despised in his prosperity (<a href='B:220 30:3'>Job 30:3</a> s:w:). But God doesn't despise even the most desperate of society. He sends rain to cheer them whom the righteous despise. And this was to help Job be convicted of his own desperation, of how wrong he had been to despise others and trust that he was righteous; and to further convict him that God still sought to revive him, as He did those deserted lands.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They pluck salt herbs by the bushes. The roots of the broom are their food-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This plant grows in the wilderness regions where the book of Job is set; the roots are famed as being bitter but nutritious for the desperately hungry and perishing Bedouin. Again we have evidence that Job was a historical person who lived where the prologue says he did.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They are driven out from the midst of men. They cry after them as after a thief-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> These desperate people whom Job so despised had been driven from their societies so that they wandered the deserts, surviving by eating wild roots, and robbing travellers and encampments like Job's. But now they were despising Job, so desperate and rejected was he. He was surely being taught how wrong he had been to despise even the spiritually desperate.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> so that they dwell in frightful valleys, and in holes of the earth and of the rocks-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> AV "in the clifts of the valleys", where Moses cowered and saw the glory of Yahweh. And it was the faithful who lived in holes, caves and amongst the rocks (<a href='B:650 11:38'>Heb 11:38</a>). The connections may mean that God is a God of the desperate- and Job had despised those on the bottom rung of society. But now he had been placed there, and would be saved if he repented of his former despising of the desperate.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Among the bushes they bray; and under the nettles they are gathered together-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The impression is given that Job considered them as animals, braying under bushes and huddling together under nettles. This treating of human beings as less than human was deeply wrong, and was something which Job had to be convicted of when he finally realized the depth of his own desperation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They are children of fools, yes, children of base men-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>&nbsp; This was how Job had seen them, but now he was beneath even them (:9). He was being made to see that God has a saving purpose even for the desperate, those "without name" (Heb:, NEV "base men"), treated by Job as if they were of no name, without personhood in his eyes. And he was now lower than them:&nbsp; We recall how the Lord taught that such was the Divine value of the human person, that whoever called his brother a fool was in danger of Gehenna's condemnation (<a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>They were flogged out of the land-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> AV "viler than the earth". This was how Job had so utterly despised people; and we marvel at God's grace in still calling him "perfect" and without guile. This therefore had been by imputed righteousness and grace alone.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Now I have become their song. Yes, I am a byword to them-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job is presented as representative of the exiles, who were a song and byword to the Gentiles whom they had once despised. The Hebrew for "byword" is literally 'a word or speech'; and Job was the subject of the friends' speeches / words (s:w. about the speeches / words of the friends, <a href='B:220 16:4'>Job 16:4</a>; <a href='B:220 19:2'>Job 19:2</a>; <a href='B:220 32:11'>Job 32:11</a>). We must consider the possibility that Job considered these desperate Bedouin people to be somehow connected with the friends who were mocking him; see on :10. These people spat in Job's face (:10), just as it seems the friends did (see on <a href='B:220 17:6'>Job 17:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They abhor me, they stand aloof from me, and don’t hesitate to spit in my face-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This abhorrence of Job by the friends is related to the way they considered mankind to be "abominable and corrupt" (<a href='B:220 15:16'>Job 15:16</a>). "Abhor" is the same word as "abominable". The simple truth is as Job put it- God has a tender desire to man, the work of His hands (<a href='B:220 14:15'>Job 14:15</a>). And whatever we posit about human nature, we say about the Lord Jesus. He fully shared that nature and yet was holy, harmless and undefiled (<a href='B:650 7:26'>Heb 7:26</a>). Man by nature, just standing there as flesh and blood before God, is not "abominable" to Him of himself. It is sin which is the problem; and sin is not inevitable. We must bear full responsibility for our sins and cannot just pass them off as an inevitable function of our humanity. The wrong view of human nature held by the friends affected their view of Job and people in practice. The lower our view of human nature, the more likely we are to despise human beings rather than value them and speak well of them because they are made in the image of God (<a href='B:660 3:9'>Jas 3:9</a>). In this experience of being spat at, Job again was experiencing the abuse of the suffering servant (s:w. <a href='B:290 50:6'>Isa 50:6</a>):&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>We must consider the possibility that Job considered these desperate Bedouin people to be somehow connected with the friends who were mocking him; see on :9. These people spat in Job's face (:10), just as it seems the friends did (see on <a href='B:220 17:6'>Job 17:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For He has untied his cord, and afflicted me; and they have thrown off restraint before me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The desperate Bedouin were seen by Job as having been unleashed upon him by God when he brought affliction upon Job. He is therefore describing the marauding bands who came and stole his cattle in the prologue. And they have an undoubted connection with the friends. Job sees God as capable of binding and loosing him, untying the cords that restrain affliction and then binding them up again (<a href='B:220 30:11'>Job 30:11</a>). God's response is that indeed this is the case, and such binding and loosing is seen throughout the natural creation (s:w. <a href='B:220 38:31'>Job 38:31</a>; <a href='B:220 39:5'>Job 39:5</a>; <a href='B:220 41:14'>Job 41:14</a>). And therefore, Job and the exiles are to live in hope of being bound up in safety from affliction, just as God "untied His cord and afflicted me" in <a href='B:220 30:11'>Job 30:11</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> On my right hand rise the rabble. They thrust aside my feet, they cast up against me their ways of destruction-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This sounds like these desperate Bedouins were in physical proximity to Job and were actually involved in his persecution (also :13). I have argued throughout the book that the satan figure morphs into the friends, and they actually perform part of the physical trials upon Job, with the Bedouin attackers of Job partly under the control- leading to Job to charge them with insincerity and hypocrisy. They are in fact guilty of all he is apparently suffering for, and so he becomes their representative saviour by the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They mar my path, they set forward my calamity-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> These words would be so appropriate if the Bedouin Arab marauders whom Job is cursing were in fact under the control of the friends, into whom the Satan figure has morphed. Eliphaz was from the same area as the Sabeans of <a href='B:220 1:15'>Job 1:15</a>. Job's experiences were of "calamity" (s:w. <a href='B:220 6:2'>Job 6:2</a>) and affliction set in his "path" (s:w. <a href='B:220 19:8'>Job 19:8</a>). And the Bedouins he curses in <a href='B:220 30:1-12'>Job 30:1-12</a> were those who had abused him in that "path" (<a href='B:220 30:13'>Job 30:13</a>). So it seems he has in view the Sabeans who had abused him in the prologue, and yet this section also has clear reference to the friends. Yet that "path" of affliction which God had given Job was the path of wisdom and relationship with Him which was indiscernible to the human eye (<a href='B:220 28:7'>Job 28:7</a> cp. 28); the fact that the ultimate path is invisible to the secular, naked eye is a truth stamped upon the natural creation (<a href='B:220 38:20'>Job 38:20</a>), and yet after the affliction or trouble, this path shines clearly (<a href='B:220 41:32'>Job 41:32</a>). And this was to be Job's experience at his restoration, as it could have been likewise for the exiles.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Without anyone’s help-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea may be that they were unprovoked to do what they did to Job. But he has just used the term of how he helped those "without anyone's help" (s:w. <a href='B:220 29:12'>Job 29:12</a>); as if to say that in return for the grace he had shown them, they now persecuted him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As through a wide breach they come, in the midst of the ruin they roll themselves in-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "The ruin" is s:w. 'the desolate place', the wilderness from where these Bedouins came (<a href='B:220 30:3'>Job 30:3</a>). This is the same picture as in <a href='B:220 1:15'>Job 1:15</a> of the Sabeans rolling in from the wilderness, associated with the whirlwind (:15), coming upon Job like waters (symbolic of enemy forces) gushing through a breach. The accusation of the friends / "sons of God" and the Satan was that God had made a fence around Job protecting him from misfortune (<a href='B:220 1:10'>Job 1:10</a>). God had agreed for this to be as it were 'widely breached'. And in came flooding the desert tribes to despoil Job. My point is that the desperate Bedouin whom Job here curses are associated with the friends, it is they who sent their own forces against Job, making him understandably accuse them of being hypocrites and false brethren.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Terrors have turned on me. They chase my honour as the wind. My welfare has passed away as a cloud-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> These Bedouin are associated with the whirlwind which struck Job (<a href='B:220 1:15-18'>Job 1:15-18</a>). "Chase" is the word translated "persecute" and is specifically applied by Job to the friends' persecution of him (<a href='B:220 19:22'>Job 19:22</a>; <a href='B:220 19:28'>Job 19:28</a>), albeit under God's control (<a href='B:220 13:25'>Job 13:25</a>); for Satan's hand is God's hand, as the prologue makes clear. Again we have a fairly solid path of identification of the friends with the Satan and with the Bedouin marauders under their control, whom they sent against Job.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Now my soul is poured out within me. Days of affliction have taken hold on me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job "held fast" to God's footprints, even though he didn't see Him (<a href='B:220 23:11'>Job 23:11</a>), and yet he later realized that the afflictions God sent had taken hold [s:w. "held fast"] to him. We see here the mutuality between God and man, achieved through the experience of suffering brought by Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In the night season my bones are pierced in me, and the pains that gnaw me take no rest-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This pain in the bones at night clearly looked ahead to that experienced by the Lord Jesus, the suffering servant based on Job, during the darkness of the crucifixion. Hezekiah, another possible fulfilment of the suffering servant, suffered likewise with bone pain at night (<a href='B:290 38:13'>Isa 38:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> By great force is my garment disfigured. It binds me about as the collar of my coat-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "With great force my disease has taken hold of my garment: it has compassed me as the collar of my coat", AV "By the great force of my disease is my garment changed". Job offered sacrifice for his children as if he were the family priest, and he likely had a priestly garment which accompanied this. But this garment had become defiled by Job's skin disease, covered with blood and secretions; and in fact Job felt it was choking him. This is another hint that legal apparatus was unable to save Job, nor those who would follow his path to restoration and revival.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He has cast me into the mire. I have become like dust and ashes-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Abraham, who would have been recent history for Job, had described the human condition as "dust and ashes". Job was dust and ashes anyway, but he feels he has "become" dust and ashes. Clearly, he is being made to realize his humanity, and God's final appearance will do this in ultimate terms. It is a denial of our humanity which leads people to a path in which they refuse to repent, reject any idea that they desperately need God, and leads to the pride of effectively playing God rather than accepting we are but dust and ashes.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I cry to You, and You do not answer me. I stand up, and You gaze at me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job feels he has 'cried out' to God for justice and not been heard (<a href='B:220 19:7'>Job 19:7</a>; <a href='B:220 30:20'>Job 30:20</a>); and that there is nothing wrong with crying out to God in distress, it is a perfectly natural reaction (<a href='B:220 24:12'>Job 24:12</a>). One comment upon this is that the young ravens cry out to God for food and yet are not always heard (<a href='B:220 38:41'>Job 38:41</a> s:w:). But God in the wider picture sustains all of creation by grace. Job did well to cry out to God even if there was no answer, because the hypocrites do not 'cry out' to God when they are facing judgment (<a href='B:220 36:13'>Job 36:13</a> s:w:). Job feels hurt that God has not responded to his 'crying out' because he says that when the needy cried out to him, he had heard (<a href='B:220 29:12'>Job 29:12</a> s:w:). But here we see his works based approach; he thought that his response to those who cried out to him meant that therefore God must respond to his crying out. And God is not so primitive. His apparent silence is because His response is not predicated upon human works and charity. It is by grace alone, as is taught in His final appearance to Job. The exiles likewise were to finally see the response to their crying out to God in the restoration (<a href='B:290 58:9'>Isa 58:9</a>), just as their representative Jonah cried out to God from the belly of sheol amidst the sea of nations, and was heard (s:w. <a href='B:390 2:2'>Jon 2:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> You have turned to be cruel to me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As God (in the Angel of the presence) "was turned to be (Israel's) enemy" because of their sin (<a href='B:290 63:10'>Isa 63:10</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>With the might of Your hand You persecute me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Satan asks God: "Put forth Your hand". The hand of God is an Angelic phrase. God agrees- "he is in your hand" (<a href='B:220 2:6'>Job 2:6</a>). Thus Satan's hand is God's hand, which in practice was articulated through an Angel, working through the friends and their Bedouin tribesmen who are the subject of this chapter. Job seems to emphasize the place of God's hand in bringing his trials- <a href='B:220 2:5-6'>Job 2:5-6</a>; <a href='B:220 2:10'>Job 2:10</a>; <a href='B:220 6:9'>Job 6:9</a>; <a href='B:220 10:7'>Job 10:7</a>; <a href='B:220 13:21'>Job 13:21</a>; <a href='B:220 19:21'>Job 19:21</a>; <a href='B:220 27:11'>Job 27:11</a> AVmg; 28:9. Job in <a href='B:220 12:9'>Job 12:9</a> feels that in the same way as God's hand had created the natural creation- and the Angels did this- so that same Angelic hand was upon him for evil. "By His Spirit (God makes His Angels spirits) He hath garnished the Heavens; His hand hath formed the crooked serpent" (<a href='B:220 26:13'>Job 26:13</a>). Thus Job associates God's Spirit with His hand, which is Satan's hand. It seems far more fitting that this hand and spirit should be Angelic rather than human. For no one human being could bring these sufferings upon Job. The human Satan, the fellow worshippers, the sons of God, was reflected in an Angel in the court of Heaven. Again, it was Angelic work that formed the Heavens. Job recognized that his trials came from the hand of God, but knew that His hand would not kill him- "with Thy strong hand Thou opposest Thyself against me::. howbeit He will not stretch out His hand to (bring me to) the grave" (<a href='B:220 30:21'>Job 30:21</a>; <a href='B:220 30:24'>Job 30:24</a> AV). This was exactly the brief given to satan- to try Job, but "preserve his life". The hand of God creating evil (<a href='B:220 2:10-11'>Job 2:10-11</a>) must surely refer to God's "Angels of evil" (<a href='B:230 78:49'>Psa 78:49</a>) rather than to man- in the restoration context, the people and Cyrus had to be taught that no one except God (including human satans!) created evil (<a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a>):&nbsp; See on <a href='B:220 26:13'>Job 26:13</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> You lift me up to the wind, and drive me with it. You dissolve me in the storm-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job recalls the whirlwind which had destroyed his family and encampment, in tandem with the attacks of the Bedouins (<a href='B:220 1:19'>Job 1:19</a>). But he insists that for all he has suffered, God was behind it. Job was representative of the exiles, who were likewise 'dissolved' in judgment (s:w. <a href='B:290 64:7'>Isa 64:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For I know that You will bring me to death, to the house appointed for all living-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In line with Job's emphasis that God is behind all his sufferings, perhaps the focus is upon "You". God would bring him to death, although the friends and their Bedouin friends wanted to- but God in the prologue had not permitted them to do this. See on :24.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> However, doesn’t one stretch out a hand to stop a fall? Or in his calamity therefore cry for help?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX presents Job as suicidal: "Oh then that I might lay hands upon myself, or at least ask another, and he should do this for me". AV "Howbeit he will not stretch out his hand to the grave, though they cry in his destruction" would connect with the same phrase being used of Satan asking God to stretch out His hand against Job (<a href='B:220 1:11'>Job 1:11</a>); but telling Satan that Job must not be brought to the grave. Although the satan sought to move God to do so (<a href='B:220 2:3'>Job 2:3</a>). Again we have the impression that the satan was manifest through the Bedouin tribesmen described here, under the control of the friends; who did every conceivable evil to Job apart from taking his life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Didn’t I weep for him who was in trouble? Wasn’t my soul grieved for the needy?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Did not I weep for him that was in trouble? was not my soul grieved for the poor? When I looked for good, then evil came unto me: and when I waited for light, there came darkness" (<a href='B:220 30:25-26'>Job 30:25-26</a>). Note the past tenses; even in the past, it seemed that evil came when he deserved blessing; but despite this, he hadn’t become inward looking; he had wept and grieved for the misfortune of others. "Weep with them that weep" (<a href='B:520 12:15'>Rom 12:15</a>) seems to be quoting from here; as if to say: Job is really our pattern in all this. But again we note that Job is very works-based in his thinking; he thinks that his kindness to the needy ought to mean that his sufferings are cut short (:26). And thereby he is failing to discern the Divine path which no eye can see.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> When I looked for good, then evil came; when I waited for light, there came darkness-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job understands that it is God who sends the good and evil, the light and the darkness, into his life (<a href='B:220 30:26'>Job 30:26</a>). Significantly, he states his faith that God even marks out the boundary between light and darkness (<a href='B:220 26:10'>Job 26:10</a>) – a similar idea in essence to the reassurance of <a href='B:290 45:5'>Isa 45:5</a> that God creates both light and darkness. The ‘darkness’, however we experience and understand it, is framed and limited by God; it is not a power or being with independent existence outside the realm of God’s power. God confirms Job’s understanding later, when He says that it is He who can swaddle the sea [another figure for uncontrollable evil] in bands of darkness (<a href='B:220 38:9'>Job 38:9</a>) – as if to say that it is God who gives things like darkness and the sea their sinister appearance and perception by men; but He is in control of them, using them in His hand. See on <a href='B:220 38:10'>Job 38:10</a>.</p><h4>Even if God slew him, Job would still be patient or wait (<a href='B:220 13:15'>Job 13:15</a>), he would 'patiently wait' for his "release" (AV "change") to come at some point after his death (<a href='B:220 14:14'>Job 14:14</a>), and waited for light to somehow come out of his current darkness (<a href='B:220 30:26'>Job 30:26</a>). This was the legendary "patience of Job" which we are bidden follow (<a href='B:660 5:11'>Jas 5:11</a>). He was impatient, but he was "patient" in the Hebrew sense of enduring in faith; faith that even if things didn't work out at all in this life, even if God was apparently unfair in this life, he would be finally restored at the resurrection. This was his 'endurance', and it is a parade example for all who struggle with the justice of God and the incomprehensible problem of suffering.</h4>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> My heart is troubled, and doesn’t rest. Days of affliction have come on me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> AV "My bowels boiled". This is the word used for the boiling of the exiles under Divine judgment (<a href='B:330 24:5'>Eze 24:5</a>). God is able to make things boil in the natural creation and then make them perfectly still (<a href='B:220 41:31'>Job 41:31</a> s:w:); and the message was that the days of affliction, the intense boiling of Job and later the exiles, could be made still in a moment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I go mourning without the sun. I stand up in the assembly, and cry for help-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The prologue described the sons of God in assembly. This would have included Job and the friends, the "sons of God". He appealed to them for comfort when they came to the next assembly, but instead he got the bitter condemnation and false accusation which is recorded in their speeches.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I am a brother to jackals, and a companion to ostriches-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The concept of clean and unclean animals was known even before the flood, so Job is accepting that he has become ritually unclean. All this was necessary for him to come to realize that his restoration was not going to be upon the basis of obedience to the law, such as it was at the time. According to that, he was unclean. Likewise the exiles had broken the old covenant, and could only be saved by the grace of the new covenant offered to them through Jeremiah and Ezekiel. See on <a href='B:220 31:7'>Job 31:7</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> My skin grows black and peels from me. My bones are burned with heat-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again Job is presented as suffering as the exiles had (<a href='B:310 5:10'>Lam 5:10</a>), possibly with allusion to leprosy (<a href='B:30 13:31'>Lev 13:31</a>). The exiles could share Job's path to restoration if they too repented and were humbled.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Therefore my harp has turned to mourning, and my pipe into the voice of those who weep- No longer is Job able to rejoice as he once had, in his own strength and exaltation. The pictures painted of the mourning exiles in Lamentations is so clearly based upon Job. See on :30.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I made a covenant with my eyes, how then should I look lustfully at a young woman?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This chapter is Job's clearing of himself, and has similarities to Babylonian legal documents. An accused person could begin his court case by such a statement of detailed denial. The accusers could respond with silence, in which case they dropped their case; or continue. The friends are reduced to silence after this great clearing of himself. Job's righteousness in a legal sense was unassailable. We may consider that their silence after this speech means that Job has 'won'. After his great clearing speech, the audience is expecting his justification. But then we have the interlude with Elihu, and then God appears Himself- and condemns yet saves Job, justifying him by condemning him, in the spirit of Paul's legal arguments in Romans 1-8. See on :2.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For what is the portion from God above, and the heritage from the Almighty on high?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job considers it unthinkable that he would have looked lustfully on a woman, because there was such an obvious judgment for adultery. He was well ahead of his time in considering that looking lustfully is the same as adultery- especially considering he was living at a time when "sin" was not a concept dwelt upon in religious circles, and the idea that we can sin in our minds was a new idea.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Is it not calamity to the unrighteous, and disaster to the workers of iniquity?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :2, Job sees thoughts as 'working' iniquity, a conception well ahead of his time, and reflective of his deep spirituality; see on <a href='B:470 5:27-30'>Mat 5:27-30</a>. Here Job uses the same Hebrew phrase used regarding the punishment of Cain's iniquity in <a href='B:10 4:13'>Gen 4:13</a>, thus saying that it was the wicked of the world, not him, who were the real counterparts of Cain; and he was only suffering as Cain, when he was as righteous Abel. See on 31:39.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Doesn’t He see my ways, and number all my steps?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job knew that it was impossible that, e:g:,&nbsp; he would lust after a woman, if he really believed (as he claimed he did) that God was omniscient. "Why then should I think upon a maid [as the friends implied he had done]?::. doth not he [God] see my ways, and count all my steps?" (<a href='B:220 31:4'>Job 31:4</a> AV). Likewise God had to remind Israel: “Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? Saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth?” (<a href='B:300 23:24'>Jer 23:24</a>). The context is appealing to the people to quit their sins:&nbsp; We should labour to enter the Kingdom, because God knows absolutely every thought and action of ours and will ultimately judge them (<a href='B:650 4:11-13'>Heb 4:11-13</a>). The Sermon on the Mount is really based around translating the knowledge that God sees and knows all things into practice.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If I have walked with falsehood, and my foot has hurried to deceit-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Falsehood" is likely a reference to idol worship.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> (let me be weighed in an even balance, that God may know my integrity)-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The same word is used in the prologue of how God already considers Job to be of "integrity" (<a href='B:220 2:3'>Job 2:3</a>; <a href='B:220 2:9'>Job 2:9</a>). Job has forgotten, as we can forget, that He counts us as if we are righteous- by grace. Instead Job seeks to establish that 'righteous' status, his own integrity, by his own good deeds and avoidance of sin, seeking now to legally establish it- rather than accepting that God simply loved him and would count him of integrity by grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> if my step has turned out of the way, if my heart walked after my eyes-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again, as noted on :3, Job perceives ahead of his time that the essence of sin is in the heart.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>If any defilement has stuck to my hands-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job has been made ritually defiled by his illness, and being forced to live with unclean animals (<a href='B:220 30:29'>Job 30:29</a>). All this was to try to make him realize that all his protestations of legal purity, of not being defiled because he had avoided sin and done good deeds, could not make him undefiled. And this was to come to full term in God's appearance at the end.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> then let me sow, and let another eat. Yes, let the produce of my field be rooted out-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This was the judgment to come upon Israel for disobedience. The reality was that Job was living in deserted houses and had lost his property. So he is saying 'This should only have happened to me if I were a sinner'. He had lost his realization that his sufferings were not related to himself; they were his bearing of the judgments of others, the just for the unjust.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The Lord likened His preachers to men reaping a harvest. He speaks of how they fulfilled the proverb that one sows and another reaps (<a href='B:500 4:37-38'>Joh 4:37-38</a>). Yet this ‘proverb’ has no direct Biblical source. What we do find in the Old Testament is the repeated idea that if someone sows but another reaps, this is a sign that they are suffering God’s judgment for their sins (<a href='B:50 20:6'>Deu 20:6</a>; <a href='B:50 28:30'>Deu 28:30</a>; <a href='B:220 31:8'>Job 31:8</a>; <a href='B:400 6:15'>Mic 6:15</a>). But the Lord turns around the ‘proverb’ concerning Israel’s condemnation; He makes it apply to the way that the preacher / reaper who doesn’t sow is the one who harvests others in converting them to Him. Surely His implication was that His preacher-reapers were those who had known condemnation for their sins, but on that basis were His humbled harvesters in the mission field.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If my heart has been enticed by a woman, and I have laid wait at my neighbour’s door-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again Job reflects some spiritual insight in recognizing the process of temptation as beginning in the human heart (<a href='B:660 1:13-15'>Jas 1:13-15</a>). We noted this on :3 also:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> then let my wife grind for another, and let others sleep with her-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This could imply that despite Job's wife not spiritually supporting him in the prologue, they remained married.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For that would be a heinous crime. Yes, it would be an iniquity to be punished by the judges-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Heinous crime" is "lewdness", the word used of the moral apostasy of God's people and their unfaithfulness to Him (s:w. <a href='B:300 13:27'>Jer 13:27</a>; <a href='B:330 16:27'>Eze 16:27</a>; <a href='B:330 16:43'>Eze 16:43</a>; <a href='B:330 16:58'>Eze 16:58</a>; <a href='B:330 23:27'>Eze 23:27</a> etc:). Job was refusing to hold to his sense that his sufferings were a bearing of the condemnation of others; he is now crying out against this, and requires the rebukes he is soon to be given by God. This too is where we go wrong; in focusing upon the injustice of situations to the point that we forget that we are called to use our experiences to minister to others.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> for it is a fire that consumes to destruction, and would root out all my increase-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> All Job's increase had been rooted out; his argument is that this ought to only have happened if he had committed adultery, which he says he had not done so, not even in his heart. He had lost his realization that his sufferings were not related to himself; they were his bearing of the judgments of others, the just for the unjust.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If I have despised the cause of my male servant or of my female servant, when they contended with me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job is coming out with the reasoning of Bildad, that God will not despise a perfect man (<a href='B:220 8:20'>Job 8:20</a> s:w:). And now he is getting angry that he is being despised when he has not despised others. He is logically building up a strong case for his self-justification. But he is omitting to factor in God's wider plan of wisdom. In spiritual terms, this final speech of Job appears to be Job at his lowest. And he lacks the humility to accept that although he had apparently not despised his servants, he had despised others (<a href='B:220 30:1'>Job 30:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> what then shall I do when God rises up? When He visits, what shall I answer Him?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job's point was that as he had not despised the cause of his servants (:13), therefore he did not have anything to fear before God's judgment. God's final appearance was proof enough that he of himself had no right to answer back to God. "What shall I answer You?" (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>) was his final word. But here, Job insists he could only be speechless before God if he had committed sins like adultery- which he was insistent he hadn't. Job is led to realize that he has sinned and fallen short of God's glory, although he had avoided the sins like adultery which counted as major sins in the view of his society.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Didn’t He who made me in the womb make him? Didn’t One fashion us in the womb?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job had just argued that some men he despised as almost less than human (<a href='B:220 30:1'>Job 30:1</a>); now he argues that all human beings are formed by God in the womb and therefore no human should ever be despised. This could be just put down to the oscillations of a depressed person; or it appears Job is not being completely honest, using spiritual truths to justify himself as needed rather than accepting their true implication.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If I have withheld the poor from their desire, or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is Job's direct answer to the false accusation of <a href='B:220 22:7'>Job 22:7</a> (s:w:). Again we note how Job actually engages with the words of the friends, whereas they respond to him in terms of vague generalities and knocking down a straw man image of him they had created in their own minds. The whole drama is an example of how dialogue breaks down.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> or have eaten my morsel alone, and the fatherless has not eaten of it-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Bildad assumes Job must have done the very opposite, to deserve his sufferings (<a href='B:220 20:19'>Job 20:19</a>). Job engages with what Bildad says and denies it (<a href='B:220 29:12'>Job 29:12</a>; <a href='B:220 31:17'>Job 31:17</a>). Again we note that Job engages with the actual words of the friends, whereas they tend to attack him in terms of the straw man image of him they had built up in their minds, ignoring him as a person and the actual words he says. This is typical of how dialogue goes wrong.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> (no, from my youth he grew up with me as with a father, her have I guided from my mother’s womb)-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In summary, as GNB "All my life I have taken care of them". Job is at pains to now claim that he had not sinned even in his youth, even from a baby he claims to have cared for the poor. This is a protestation of innocence too far. He has moved away from his earlier acceptance of sin to now claim he had not sinned even from the womb. No wonder he needed the rebuke which is soon to come from him. The audience is intended to wince at this point, and to expect a rebuke and conviction of sin- which indeed comes.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> if I have seen any perish for want of clothing, or that the needy had no covering-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job has a strong awareness of his pas good works; the blessing of people ready to perish came upon him, for he recalled how he had saved them (s:w. <a href='B:220 29:13'>Job 29:13</a>). Job now was ready to perish (s:w. <a href='B:220 4:7'>Job 4:7</a>; <a href='B:220 14:19'>Job 14:19</a>; <a href='B:220 18:17'>Job 18:17</a>; <a href='B:220 20:7'>Job 20:7</a>). He feels that he ought to be saved from perishing because he had saved others from perishing. In this final speech, Job becomes very works based. He becomes the epitome of justification by works; and God's display of His works in creation and salvation was going to convict him that his works were irrelevant, and salvation was by grace alone.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> if his heart hasn’t blessed me, if he hasn’t been warmed with my sheep’s fleece-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job in a legalistic way (see on :19) seems to consider that the blessings given him by those whom he had helped (<a href='B:220 29:13'>Job 29:13</a>) ought to have actual meaning; instead of his perishing in shame and lack of clothing. Again, he is arguing for justification by works and human blessing. He was to be taught that Divine blessing is the only blessing which can save.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> if I have lifted up my hand against the fatherless, because I saw my help in the gate-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is as LXX "if I lifted my hand against an orphan, trusting that my strength was far superior to his" and GNB "If I have ever cheated an orphan, knowing I could win in court". Job was confident that he had not misused legal process, and so he longs for some kind of court case with God whereby he can be justified. He was to learn that his apparent justice was as nothing compared to Divine justice.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> then let my shoulder fall from the shoulder blade, and my arm be broken from the bone-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The arm may represent his power. But his power, his arm, had been broken. So he is arguing that what has happened to him should only have happened if he had done the things he was accused of. And seeing he hadn't, this breaking of his life shouldn't have happened. He totally forgot the parameters set in the prologue; that his suffering was not punishment for sin. And he has moved away from his earlier perception that he was in some sense suffering for the sake of others' salvation, even if he only dimly perceived that.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For calamity from God is a terror to me. Because of His majesty, I can do nothing-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is as GNB "Because I fear God's punishment, I could never do such a thing". And here we have a window into Job's motivation; he feared condemnation and therefore he was careful to be strictly legally obedient. It was this mindset which was to be dismantled by God's final appearance. See on :28.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If I have made gold my hope, and have said to the fine gold, ‘You are my confidence’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> <a href='B:220 31:24-25'>Job 31:24-25</a>; <a href='B:220 31:28'>Job 31:28</a> speak in dire and chilling terms of trusting in wealth- and note that these words come from a rich believer who lost it all: “had I put my trust in gold, or called fine gold my security [cp. assurance and insurance policies, bank balances, portfolios of investments</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> banknotes stored under the carpet, jewelry hidden in a corner of some peasant home]</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> this would be a crime for condemnation; for I should have denied God above”. It’s noteworthy that Job claims that despite having been one of the wealthiest men in the Middle East, he never put his trust in it. But that shouldn’t lead us to think that we can so easily handle the possession of wealth. For to possess wealth leads most people to trust in it. And if we do this</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> this is a crime calling for our condemnation, it’s a denial of God, an effective atheism. Attitudes to wealth are that important.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> if I have rejoiced because my wealth was great, and because my hand had gotten much-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again we see Job moving outside of the parameters provided in the prologue. There it was made clear that his wealth was given by God's hand; but now he claims it was from his own hand. This is the problem with suffering and false accusation; it can make us terribly self congratulatory, listing our own good deeds, rather than serving to humble us and recognize our humanity. Job previously has had points where he does indeed appear to be responding rightly; but finally now he reveals his essential self justification. No longer does he groan about his physical sufferings; instead he is pouring out self justification.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> if I have seen the sun when it shined, or the moon moving in splendour-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The reference is to worshipping the sun and moon. This was common enough at the time, and was called Sabaism (from&nbsp;tsaba,&nbsp;"the heavenly hosts"). It could be argued that the term "Lord of Sabaoth" ["Yahweh of hosts"] was a deconstruction of this common view, presenting Yahweh as the God of the heavenly hosts.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> and my heart has been secretly enticed, and my hand threw a kiss from my mouth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again as noted on :1,7, Job perceives that the essence of idolatry is in the human heart. He realized what James was to later make explicit (<a href='B:660 1:13-15'>Jas 1:13-15</a>)- that the process of temptation begins within the heart. Idolatry is essentially an affair of the heart.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> this also would be an iniquity to be punished by the judges; for I should have denied the God who is above-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> &nbsp;And here we have a window into Job's motivation; he feared condemnation and therefore he was careful to be strictly legally obedient. He was careful not to follow his wife's advice to deny or curse God and die; and he as it were parades his faithfulness to God by recalling how he had refused to yield to her. It was this mindset which was to be dismantled by God's final appearance. See on :23.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If I have rejoiced at the destruction of him who hated me, or lifted up myself when evil found him-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job had not had an altogether easy life even before the sufferings came. He had experience of being hated, and had seen the destruction of those people. But he insists he had not rejoiced; instead he had been sad. And this sorrow for the lost is revealed several times in his genuine concern for the friends' salvation. This basic desire is to be used by God when Job is made the one whose prayer and representational suffering saves the friends.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> (yes, I have not allowed my mouth to sin by asking his life with a curse)-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again we get the impression of Job parading his steel willed self control, not allowing his mouth to sin. Acceptability with God is not a function of how strong is our will. For some have more steel in their will than others. It's about believing in grace an accepting it. Perhaps the Lord alludes to Job favourably at this point (despite his surrounding words being so full of self justification); for He taught that instead of doing evil to our enemies, "I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for them that persecute you" (<a href='B:470 5:44'>Mat 5:44</a>). And this is what Job did- his prayer for the friends, who apparently were his actual persecutors, bringing many of the trials upon him, was finally answered.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> if the men of my tent have not said, ‘Who can find one who has not been filled with his meat?’-</p><h4> Job's own family were bound to recognize that Job had been generous to the hungry and stranger (:32). But his wife turned away from him, and his wider family only appear on the scene at the end. They knew he was of integrity, but Job's wife had urged him to curse God and resign his integrity.</h4>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> (the foreigner has not lodged in the street, but I have opened my doors to the traveller)-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job may be alluding to the well known hospitality of Abraham and Lot in fairly recent history. Again he is presenting himself as a seed of Abraham by works rather than by faith.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> if like Adam I have covered my transgressions, by hiding my iniquity in my heart-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Here Job denies that he is like Adam in that unlike him, he has no sin to hide. The same word for "hiding" is used in <a href='B:10 3:8'>Gen 3:8</a>; <a href='B:10 3:10'>Gen 3:10</a>, of Adam&nbsp;hiding&nbsp;himself from God. But Job was like Adam, and part of the lesson is that he was denying his humanity. And so like Adam he was humiliated by God's questioning at the end of the book. Job is associated with Adam several times in the book- see on <a href='B:220 9:17'>Job 9:17</a>; <a href='B:220 10:9'>Job 10:9</a>; <a href='B:220 13:20-22'>Job 13:20-22</a>. But he was denial of his humanity, unable to accept that he was a son of Adam who was also a sinner, even if seen as righteous.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>LXX "or if too having sinned unintentionally, I hid my sin;</p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>(for I did not stand in awe of a great multitude, so as not to declare boldly before them:)". Job recognizes that sins of ignorance are still sins and apparently confessed such sins before others, perhaps at the regular meetings of the "sons of God" (<a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>). But even this he cites as a reason for his justification; rather than recognizing that therefore he is not in fact perfect and sinless.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> because I feared the great multitude, and the contempt of families terrified me, so that I kept silence, and didn’t go out of the door-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I noted on :32 that Job compares his hospitality to that of Abraham and Lot. He alludes to how Lot went out of the door to the great crowd in order to defend his guests' honour. Again he presents himself as a seed of the faithful family by works rather than by faith. He has little to say about the great promises to Abraham and the patriarchs; he felt his own works eclipsed their importance.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>"Terrify" is the word elsewhere translated 'dismay', and is used of how the exiles were urged not to be dismayed but to believe that God would indeed bring them from exile to restoration in His restored Kingdom (<a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a>; <a href='B:300 30:10'>Jer 30:10</a>; <a href='B:300 46:27'>Jer 46:27</a>). Job begins by being dismayed / scared (<a href='B:220 7:14'>Job 7:14</a>), but develops to not be dismayed (<a href='B:220 31:34'>Job 31:34</a> s:w:), following the example of the Lord's battle horse (<a href='B:220 39:22'>Job 39:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> oh that I had one to hear me!-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job appeals for ‘witnesses’ (<a href='B:220 9:33-35'>Job 9:33-35</a>; <a href='B:220 16:18-22'>Job 16:18-22</a>; <a href='B:220 19:20-27'>Job 19:20-27</a>), an advocate in Heaven (<a href='B:220 9:33'>Job 9:33</a>), denies his guilt and demands a legal list of his sins (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a>), he wishes for God to come to trial (<a href='B:220 9:3'>Job 9:3</a>), and thus Job is described as a man who has taken out a ‘case’ with God (<a href='B:220 23:4'>Job 23:4</a>; <a href='B:220 40:2'>Job 40:2</a>). Job 29-31 is effectively Job’s declaration of legal innocence and an appeal to God to hear his case more sympathetically (<a href='B:220 31:35'>Job 31:35</a>). And of course God pronounces a final legal verdict at the very end (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>), in response to Job’s earlier plea: “Sleeplessly I wait for His reply” (<a href='B:220 16:22'>Job 16:22</a>). It’s as if the whole experience of Job was [at least partly] in order to test out the Canaanite theories of ‘Satan’, suffering and evil in the court of Heaven; and also the various theories which arose to explain Judah's captivity in Babylon. The friends represent the traditional views of evil, and often make reference to the myths of their day about ‘Satan’ figures. They speak as if they are the final court – Eliphaz speaks of how the judges and elders of their day, the “holy ones”, had concluded Job was guilty, and that they, the friends, were right: “To which of the holy ones will you appeal [legal language]?::. we have [legally] examined this, and it [Job’s guilt] is true” (<a href='B:220 5:1'>Job 5:1</a>; <a href='B:220 5:27'>Job 5:27</a>). This is of great comfort to those who feel misjudged by man – above them in Heaven the ultimate Heavenly court is considering our case, and that is all that matters.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Behold, here is my signature, let the Almighty answer me; let the accuser write my indictment!-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Or, "Behold my&nbsp;sign". The legal mark made on statements of defence in those days was originally a&nbsp;cross;&nbsp;and hence the letter Tau or T. We are invited to see him swearing as it were by the cross. His challenge to God to write an indictment was arrogant, and is answered by God's personal appearance, convicting him of sin. Again we note that Job perceives his "adversary" (AV) or accuser as effectively God. Although it was the satan, who morphs into the friends, who in practice accused him- of only believing in God because he had received Divine blessing.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Surely I would carry it on my shoulder; and I would bind it to me as a crown-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> His desire that the accusations be written down was ultimately answered by the production of the book of Job. But the whole story is hardly a crown of glory to Job, because at the end he is humiliated and condemned.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I would declare to Him the number of my steps. As a prince would I go near to Him-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job definitely had to be humbled from this arrogant position. He was no prince before God. And in this we see him as representative of Israel, 'prince with God'. Through repentance and recognizing his humanity, he would eventually become 'prince with God', as Israel could have done, and as the exiles were bidden do by following Job's path.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If my land cries out against me, and its furrows weep together-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The land is put by metonymy for the workers of it, who would have cried out against him for being deceived of their wages (:39). But they didn't. Job had acted with integrity. Just as he had not caused people to lose their lives in tending his land (:39), so perhaps he farmed his land sensitive to the land itself, not greedily seeking the maximum gain from it, so that its furrows didn't as it were weep.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> if I have eaten its fruits without money, or have caused its owners to lose their life-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See on :38. <a href='B:660 5:4'>Jas 5:4</a> alludes here, condemning the early Christians for abusing their workers, and thereby holding up Job and his repentance as their pattern. Perhaps here we have another example of Job saying that he was being unfairly treated like Cain: "If I have eaten the strength (of my land) without money::. let thistles grow instead of wheat" (31:39,40 AVmg:). This is referring back to the curse on Cain, that "when thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength" (<a href='B:10 4:12'>Gen 4:12</a>). Job is saying that his land has yielded its strength to him, and that only if he sinned should the Adamic curse of thistles come upon him. We too can resent the limitations of our own nature, not least in the proneness to sin which it gives us, and become bitter against God because of it as Job did. See on 11:15; 13:27; 16:17,18; 31:3.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> let briars grow instead of wheat, and stinkweed instead of barley. The words of Job are ended- Thistles were part of the curse. Again we see Job failing to recognize his humanity, acting as if he were not under the curse of Eden, and arguing that it was unfair that it applied to him, concluding that it should only apply to him if he had sinned. He was counted righteous by God at the beginning and at the end of the book, but he was a sinner. He was not the Lord Jesus. Had he been in Adam's place, he would have done the same thing; and in that sense, we all sinned "in Adam" (<a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a>). Job has now to be convicted of his humanity.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> So these three men ceased to answer Job-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The preceding chapter has been Job's clearing of himself, and has similarities to Babylonian legal documents. An accused person could begin their court case by such a statement of detailed denial. The accusers could respond with silence, in which case they dropped their case; or continue. The friends are reduced to silence after this great clearing of himself. Job's righteousness in a legal sense was unassailable. We may consider that their silence after this speech means that Job has 'won'. After his great clearing speech, the audience is expecting his justification. But then we have the interlude with Elihu, and then God appears Himself- and condemns yet saves Job, justifying him by condemning him, in the spirit of Paul's legal arguments in Romans 1-8.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Because he was righteous in his own eyes-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The contrast is with the fact that God doesn't remove His eyes from the righteous (s:w. <a href='B:220 36:7'>Job 36:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Then the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel, the Buzite, of the family of Ram, was kindled against Job. His wrath was kindled because he justified himself rather than God-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The role of Elihu is difficult to perceive. He repeats the arguments of the friends in some detail, summing them up, as it were, in his own words. We must remember that Job is poetry, it is a drama, although that doesn't take away from the existence of a historical Job (see on <a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>). In terms of the drama, we have here a series of speeches, full of accusations, followed by Job's rebuttals. For an illiterate audience, or any audience hearing / watching rather than reading the drama, by this point we have all rather forgotten the arguments. So simply in terms of the drama, Elihu could function as an appropriate way of summarizing what has been said so far. And many of his arguments against Job are repeated afterwards by God- so his function is also to introduce us to the revelation of God's own perspective which is coming. Job did indeed justify himself, but he did not completely not justify God; although perhaps the sense is that he focused more upon his own rightness ['justification'] rather than God's. The suffering servant of Isaiah is indeed based upon Job, but at times by way of contrast. By His sufferings, He justified "many" (s:w. <a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a>), whereas Job at best only justified himself:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Also his wrath was kindled against his three friends, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job feels God's wrath kindled against him (<a href='B:220 19:11'>Job 19:11</a>). The innocent Job&nbsp; experienced the judgments of God's people, against whom God's wrath was kindled (<a href='B:50 11:17'>Deu 11:17</a>; <a href='B:120 23:26'>2Ki 23:26</a>). Significantly, we find Elihu's wrath kindled against both Job and the friends (<a href='B:220 32:2-3'>Job 32:2-3</a>), but the wrath of God was kindled only against the friends (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>). Elihu is therefore not fully reflecting God's position about Job. I have repeatedly demonstrated that the innocent Job was suffering the judgment for the sins of God's people. In the end, this came to full term in the salvation of the friends on account of Job's intercession. God's wrath was not personally against Job, it was against the friends. But Job suffered God's wrath against him, because he was to be the saviour of the friends by offering sacrifice for them and praying for them. This looks forward to the work of the Lord Jesus, the suffering servant based upon Job; experiencing the judgment for our sins, and through the representative nature of His sacrifice, being able to save us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Now Elihu had waited to speak to Job, because they were elder than he-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> We are invited to imagine Elihu as being one of the "sons of God" of <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a> who had been party to the discussions of the prologue between God and the satan. His comments, however, repeatedly ignore the parameters set in the prologue. Again as noted on :2, Elihu appears to be a literary device summarizing the arguments so far, although taking the side of the friends against Job; and giving a foretaste of the arguments of God which are about to be revealed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, his wrath was kindled-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This phrase "his wrath was kindled" is that used of how God's wrath was kindled against the friends (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>); but significantly not against Job. Elihu is therefore presented as not completely in step with God and is not totally His representative when he talks about Job. This all adds to the intentional enigma of Elihu; he functions also to elicit our response as the audience to the speeches. We are all beginning to form our opinions of the characters, and then Elihu appears and gives his take, and we raise our eyebrows and wonder whether::. he is right or wrong, just as we too struggle to come to a correct and just opinion about what we've just heard.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered, I am young, and you are very old; therefore I held back, and didn’t dare show you my opinion-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Very old" may be sarcasm, seeing Job lived 140 years after this (<a href='B:220 42:16'>Job 42:16</a>) and his father was still alive (<a href='B:220 15:10'>Job 15:10</a>), and the friends appeal to the wisdom of men older than them, in which case we immediately begin to doubt whether Elihu is indeed totally God's representative; this enigma of Elihu is intentional, as explained on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a>. As a Buzite, Elihu was from the same geographical area and the same broad ethnic background as the friends (<a href='B:10 22:1'>Gen 22:1</a>; <a href='B:300 25:23'>Jer 25:23</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I said, ‘Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> On this point Elihu agrees with Job, that traditional wisdom and religion has failed and was not being taught by the friends (<a href='B:220 26:3'>Job 26:3</a>). The old men were not teaching wisdom.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But there is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty gives them understanding-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I suggest the idea is not that every man is inspired, but that just as God breathes the physical breath of life into man, so He can choose to inspire some men; and this is the source of teaching, as we have it today in the inspired writings known as the Bible; rather than through appealing to sages and tradition, as the friends were doing. But see on <a href='B:220 33:4'>Job 33:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> It is not the great who are wise, nor the aged who understand justice-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This idea that age and position were effectively the basis for inspired wisdom was well entrenched. Even the disciples marvelled that the great men of Jewish society would not be saved (<a href='B:470 19:23-25'>Mat 19:23-25</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Therefore I said, ‘Listen to me; I also will show my opinion’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> By implication, Elihu considers himself to be inspired by God (see on :8). "Opinion" really means "knowledge", and the Hebrew word is used only by Elihu (<a href='B:220 32:6'>Job 32:6</a>; <a href='B:220 32:10'>Job 32:10</a>; <a href='B:220 32:17'>Job 32:17</a>). He claims his knowledge comes from "afar", from God (<a href='B:220 36:3'>Job 36:3</a>), but he also recognizes that God alone has totality of "knowledge" (<a href='B:220 37:16'>Job 37:16</a>). So we are again left with Elihu as an enigma, not totally reflecting God's knowledge, although considering that his view is in line with God's. This enigma of Elihu is purposeful; as explained on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a>, his function is to elicit our opinions; we too who like to think our view is in line with God's, and yet admitting we lack His total knowledge.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, I waited for your words, and I listened for your reasoning, while you searched out what to say-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The friends claimed they had "searched out" their response (s:w. <a href='B:220 5:27'>Job 5:27</a>). One theme of the book is that God alone searches man and searches out final truth in judgment (<a href='B:220 28:3'>Job 28:3</a>; <a href='B:220 28:27'>Job 28:27</a>). The exiles were comforted that no matter how they were judged by human judgment, God alone searches out man (<a href='B:230 139:1'>Psa 139:1</a>; <a href='B:230 139:23'>Psa 139:23</a>; <a href='B:300 17:10'>Jer 17:10</a>). The exiles were to search themselves not others (<a href='B:310 3:40'>Lam 3:40</a> s:w:). God's final appearance is evidence enough that He alone can search out His own creation, including humans. Elihu yet again is presented as not completely in line with God's position, for by implication he considers he can search out this matter where the friends have failed to.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Yes, I gave you my full attention, but there was no one who convinced Job, or who answered his words, among you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As often noted on expounding the speeches, the friends tend not to engage with Job's actual words but rather attack their straw man image of him which they have created. They tend to respond to Job in terms of vague generalities, whereas Job more specifically engages with their actual words. The whole dialogue, on one level, is an example of human dialogue and personal relationship gone wrong. We are left with the impression that Job needs to be convicted, but he hasn't been convicted by the friends. Their legal case has failed. And this sets the scene for God's final conviction of Job.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Beware lest you say, ‘We have found wisdom, God may refute him, not man’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> GNB "How can you claim you have discovered wisdom? God must answer Job, for you have failed". Their failure was in that they had not convicted Job is sin. Only God can do that, and indeed that is what happens at the end. This is one of those points at which the audience has to nod in agreement with Elihu. Or we can read with LXX "lest ye should say, We have found that we have added wisdom to the Lord". They were acting as greater than God, assuming their wisdom was above His.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> for he has not directed his words against me; neither will I answer him with your speeches-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea may be that even if Job had been answering Elihu, he wouldn't have spoken as they had.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They were amazed. They answered no more. They didn’t have a word to say-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> It could be that this is the narrator's description of how the friends were unable to answer Elihu. Or it could be that this is Elihu commenting upon how they had been closed down by Job's reasoning, looking forward to how at the end, men feared to ask the Lord any more questions or seek to answer Him back. <a href='B:470 22:46'>Mat 22:46</a> appears to allude here, confirming Job as a type of the Lord Jesus: "No man was able to answer Him a word, neither dared any man from that day onwards ask Him any more questions". Some see in :15,16 the implication that Elihu actually wrote the book of Job. He was therefore the fulfilment of Job's desire that someone would sympathetically write his grief and record his mental agonies (<a href='B:220 19:23'>Job 19:23</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Shall I wait, because they don’t speak, because they stand still, and answer no more?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The drama in performance likely included a significant silence after Job finishes his last speech, and the silence of the friends leads us to wonder whether for all Job's self righteousness in his final speech, they have been trounced. But then Elihu speaks.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I also will answer my part, and I also will show my opinion-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Whether Elihu is directly from God or not is an open question. It is purposefully ambiguous. The audience 'hear' the lengthy silence after Job finishes, and the friends are unable to continue arguing with him. His righteousness appears genuine, if arrogantly presented and recounted. And we are left to ponder how much of what he says is just the views of an angry young man, and how much is really of God. The enigma of Elihu is therefore to give us the audience a chance to ponder whether we accept or reject Job's argument and legal case. We wonder whether Elihu speaks for us, in places, or completely, or not at all.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For I am full of words. The spirit within me constrains me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu sounds exactly like Zophar, who says the same (<a href='B:220 20:2-3'>Job 20:2-3</a>) as well as Job, who likewise feels he just has to speak (<a href='B:220 13:13'>Job 13:13</a>; <a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a>). The book ends with Job, Elihu and the friends all in humbled silence. We feel that our earlier impression has been confirmed- that it would've been better had they remained in silence as they were at the start of the drama. The book opens and closes with Job and the friends sitting in silence. The implication is that all the words were inappropriate. And this impression applies to Elihu too. Again we are purposefully presented with Elihu as an enigmatic figure.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, my breast is as wine which has no vent; like new wineskins it is ready to burst-</p><h4> The implication is that he has old wine in new wineskins, and this is an image used negatively by the Lord (<a href='B:470 9:17'>Mat 9:17</a>). This would place Elihu in a somewhat negative light. As argued earlier, he appears to be a literary device to summarize the friends' arguments, reminding us of Job's weaker moments in his self-righteousness, and giving a foretaste of God's argument which is yet to come.</h4>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I will speak, that I may be refreshed. I will open my lips and answer-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job opened his mouth at the beginning (<a href='B:220 3:1'>Job 3:1</a>), just as Elihu now does, and we have the impression that he would have been better to be as the Lord Jesus, and remain silent through His trials. Elihu spoke for his own benefit- "that I may be refreshed". And this was what they all did.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Please don’t let me respect any man’s person, neither will I give flattering titles to any man-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :9, Elihu is correct in realizing that titles and human respect are no basis for truth. 'To give flattering titles' is s:w. "surname himself" in <a href='B:290 44:5'>Isa 44:5</a>, where the exiles are to surname themselves by Yahweh and not by man.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For I don’t know how to give flattering titles; or else my Maker would soon take me away- This is confirming Job's similar condemnation of flattery in <a href='B:220 17:5'>Job 17:5</a>. If we accept God is our maker, then other human beings are likewise made by Him. This means we should respect them, but not make them more than human by giving them flattering titles.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> However, Job, please hear my speech, and listen to all my words-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This recalls the plea of Job (<a href='B:220 13:17'>Job 13:17</a>; <a href='B:220 21:2'>Job 21:2</a>). We are given the impression that just as Job was so desperate to speak and would've been better not to, so Elihu likewise. See on :2,31.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See now, I have opened my mouth. My tongue has spoken in my mouth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again we see a similarity with Job, who is silent for a period and then opens his mouth and speaks (<a href='B:220 3:1'>Job 3:1</a>). But our natural reflection is that Job would've been better to remain silent. And we are encouraged through this connection to think the same of Elihu. This all contributes towards an intended impression that Elihu is an enigmatic figure. We are not intended to be sure as to whether he is really in line with God or not. He functions also to elicit our response as the audience to the speeches. We are all beginning to form our opinions of the characters, and then Elihu appears and gives his take, and we raise our eyebrows and wonder whether::. he is right or wrong, just as we too struggle to come to a correct and just opinion about what we've just heard.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> My words shall utter the uprightness of my heart. That which my lips know they shall speak sincerely-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The very phrase "words of uprightness" is only found when Job complains about the words of the friends in <a href='B:220 6:25'>Job 6:25</a>: "How forcible are words of uprightness! But your reproof, what does it reprove?". This experience led Job to long for "words of uprightness", and thereby he came to be ready for the final revelation of God's words at the end of the book. Likewise our disillusion with human words and relationships leads us to be the more eager and ready for God's revelation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "The Divine Spirit is that which formed me, and the breath of the Almighty that which teaches me". Elihu has used the same argument in <a href='B:220 32:8'>Job 32:8</a>. He seems however to assume that because he like all men has been made by God's Spirit and given life by that Spirit, his opinion is therefore inspired by God's Spirit. That is obviously a false position. Again, we are intentionally left wondering whether Elihu is totally in line with God, and we get the impression from this kind of thing that he isn't. See on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If you can, answer me. Set your words in order before me, and stand forth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu seems to be responding to Job's words in <a href='B:220 23:6'>Job 23:6</a> "Would He contend with me in the greatness of His power? No, but He would listen to me"- AV "Would he plead against me:::?". God, and Elihu on His behalf, did plead against Job by recounting God's power. When Elihu was established in Job's mind as God's true representative, he found that he had nothing to say, as he thought he would have. Elihu seems to refer back to this speech when he challenges the dumfounded Job: "If thou hast anything to say, answer me::. if thou canst answer me, set thy words in order before me" (<a href='B:220 33:32'>Job 33:32</a>; <a href='B:220 33:5'>Job 33:5</a> AV). Elihu has in mind <a href='B:220 23:4'>Job 23:4</a> "I would set my cause in order before Him". Job several times spoke of how he would fully explain himself to God, if he found Him. Yet in the presence of God and Elihu, he finds that all the words dry up. Words became irrelevant. All he can do is behold the majesty of God's righteousness, and declare his own unrighteousness. That spiritual pinnacle of Job still lies ahead for the majority of us. The desire to speak is a desire to express our own thoughts. Words are a construct which can trap us. Only God's words can liberate. There is a wordless element in being truly humbled before the Almighty.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, I am toward God even as you are. I am also formed out of the clay-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The degree to which Elihu was Job's exact representative helps us appreciate the precision of our Lord's representation of us. Indeed this appears to be one of the roles of Elihu in Job. The LXX brings this out well: "Stand against me, and I will stand against thee. Thou art formed out of the clay as also I: we have been formed out of the same substance". It seems that Elihu had been through Job's very experiences, of 'death' and rising again: "He has delivered my soul from death, that my life may praise him in the light. Hearken, Job, and hear me" (33:30,31 LXX). And this is exactly what Job did. But again we are left wondering whether Elihu really is the answer to Job's desire for a sympathetic mediator with God. Here at the beginning of his speech, we have hopes he might be. But as we see how tough he is on Job, we wonder. We look for someone else. And that person doesn't arise, at the time. God Himself then appears, without any mediator. But our sympathy with Job's desire for a mediator leads us in essence to an understanding of the Lord Jesus.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Understanding the real import of the speeches rests largely on a correct understanding of Elihu. Job longed for one like Elihu, who could reconcile God with Job's righteous life , his sufferings, and all his intellectual doubts. Elihu points out that he is the fulfilment of Job's need (<a href='B:220 33:6'>Job 33:6</a> cp. 9:33). With this, Job has no disagreement. Elihu can be seen as a type of Christ. The speeches of Job therefore make us see the desperation of man's need for Elihu/Jesus; especially the need of those who lived under the Old Covenant. Job's weakness, morally, physically and intellectually, becomes representative of the weakness of each of us. We breathe a&nbsp; sigh of relief when Elihu appears on the scene. But we are not completely relieved as Elihu's speeches continue. For he isn't very sympathetic to Job. So whilst we see him as the requested mediator, his failure and our dissatisfaction with him becomes our longing for a better mediator, the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, my terror shall not make you afraid, neither shall my pressure be heavy on you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Clearly God's "hand" (s:w. "pressure") had been upon Job, and God had made Job feel His "terrors" (s:w. <a href='B:220 7:14'>Job 7:14</a>; <a href='B:220 9:34'>Job 9:34</a>). Elihu is saying that he is not going to be like this; he had no power to hurt Job, he is just making observations.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Job had stated this fear of God's terror making him afraid in <a href='B:220 9:34'>Job 9:34</a>; <a href='B:220 13:21'>Job 13:21</a>, and Elihu alludes to it when he uses the same phrase in assuring Job that his terror will not make Job afraid (<a href='B:220 33:7'>Job 33:7</a>). The terror is perhaps "the terror of the Lord", the fear of condemnation at the last day (so Paul uses the phrase, <a href='B:540 5:11'>2Co 5:11</a>). That terror should "persuade men" to accept grace, Paul argues. To have that terror unexperienced by men would mean they had no persuasion toward grace. Elihu however argues that he is not going to as it were pressurize Job with such fears.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>It might be possible to speculate as to the tone of voice in which Elihu spoke. By contrast to the friends' "hard speeches", Elihu assures Job at the start of their dialogue: "My fear shall not terrify thee, neither shall my hand be heavy upon thee" (33:7 LXX). A similar contrast is pointed by Elihu's claim to be speaking as a result of God's spirit within him (<a href='B:220 32:8'>Job 32:8</a>), whereas Zophar and the friends spoke from their own spirit (20:3). Apart from God's specific confirmation of Elihu's words, Job evidently perceived Elihu to be the answer to his pleas to find God. Job's desire for "a daysman" was answered by Elihu: "I am according to thy wish". Job did not dispute this. If one of the friends had claimed to be such a "daysman" , we can imagine Job's indignant denial of it!</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Surely you have spoken in my hearing, I have heard the voice of your words, saying-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu has been present all along. Although the reader hasn't seen him, the audience watching the drama would have seen him there.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> ‘I am clean, without disobedience. I am innocent, neither is there iniquity in me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Discerning and feeling ones own sinfulness is an undoubted part of conversion. Elihu on God’s behalf rebukes Job for thinking that “I am clean without transgression” (33:9,12); and Elihu’s exhortation to Job to say “I have sinned” (33:27) is obeyed by Job, as if he accepted the truth of what Elihu was saying. How we see the role of Elihu determines how we understand Job's claims of innocence. But we are left with a nagging doubt about Elihu. I have earlier suggested that he is inserted as a literary device to summarize the arguments so far and to give us a foretaste of God's argument which is yet to come.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, He finds occasions against me. He counts me for His enemy-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is a rather uncharitable twist of Job's words in <a href='B:220 7:17-19'>Job 7:17-19</a>; <a href='B:220 10:3-6'>Job 10:3-6</a>. And even when Job feels God is his enemy (<a href='B:220 16:9'>Job 16:9</a>), this surely must be balanced against what Job elsewhere says about maintaining his faith in God, even if God slays him. We are expecting Elihu to be sympathetic, and instead we find him twisting Job's words and seizing upon the words of a man clearly in great pain and anguish whilst ignoring the other things he says about God. God's statement that Job has spoken what is right about Him (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>) appears to be a rebuke of Elihu's position. But for now, we immediately begin to have our doubts about Elihu.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He puts my feet in the stocks. He marks all my paths’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is indeed a quote of Job's words in <a href='B:220 13:27'>Job 13:27</a>, but Elihu rather overlooks the context in which Job spoke of God marking all his paths (<a href='B:220 7:17-19'>Job 7:17-19</a>). We get the impression that Elihu is making Job an offender for a word, and is not giving credit for all the faith he shows in God in his other speeches.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, I will answer you. In this you are not just, for God is greater than man-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job has often said that God is greater than man. And yet indeed Job is "not just" for no man can be just with God of himself, as Job has recognized (<a href='B:220 9:2'>Job 9:2</a>). We sense Elihu is definitely framing Job in as negative a light as possible, and is not free from the false accusations against Job which have been seen throughout the speeches of the friends. I suggested on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a> that Elihu serves in the narrative to summarize the arguments of the friends.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Why do you strive against Him, because He doesn’t give account of any of His matters?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again this seems a twist of Job's words; he has complained that God is striving against him (s:w. <a href='B:220 9:3'>Job 9:3</a>; <a href='B:220 10:2'>Job 10:2</a>; <a href='B:220 13:8'>Job 13:8</a>; <a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a>), and in his maturer moments Job recognized God was not in fact striving against him (<a href='B:220 23:6'>Job 23:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For God speaks once, yes twice, though man pays no attention-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job has wanted God to speak to him (<a href='B:220 13:22'>Job 13:22</a>; <a href='B:220 23:5'>Job 23:5</a>), and Elihu is saying that God has spoken to Job through his sufferings, which Elihu now proceeds to allude to in the next verses. But God will finally speak, plainly and directly. We are left to wonder whether in fact Elihu is right or not; for it was not that Job was paying no attention.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on men, in slumbering on the bed-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This and the following verses allude to Job's situation. God had given him nightmare visions and bad dreams (<a href='B:220 7:14'>Job 7:14</a>). Whether these were the Divine revelations which Elihu imagines or merely part of the overall illness of Job::. again remains unclear to us. Exactly because Elihu is purposefully enigmatic as to whether he is really in line with God; see on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> then He opens the ears of men, and seals their instruction-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This rather sounds like the claim of Eliphaz to have had revelation from God in a night vision, which claim I suggested was false (see on <a href='B:220 4:15'>Job 4:15</a>). See on :15.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> that He may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This suggests Job had an evil purpose which God had sought to deflect him from by giving him night visions. But this argument of Elihu's is at variance with the explanations provided in the prologue- that Job is not a sinner who needs correction, but a man being tested for the sake of revealing truths to the friends / satan / "sons of God".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He keeps back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The impression is that Job was headed for death "by the sword" of his attackers, but God was trying to save him from this by giving him visions at night. But that is at variance with the parameters set in the prologue. God was not going&nbsp; to allow Job's abusers to slay him. His life was to be preserved. So recalling that, we further wonder about Elihu. He states some truths, which God later confirms, but there is much which leaves us doubting whether his approach is totally in line with God's. This is intentional. See on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He is chastened also with pain on his bed, with continual strife in his bones-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This clearly alludes to Job's writhing with pain on his couch with continual pain on his bones. But was this for his 'chastening'? As discussed on :18, the parameters defined in the prologue suggest that the sufferings were for the education of others, and not for Job's personal chastening.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> so that his life hates bread, and his soul dainty food-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Clearly Elihu has Job in view. But there is no evidence he lost appetite; instead he complains that he has to beg for bread and has to eat whatever he can get (<a href='B:220 3:24'>Job 3:24</a>; <a href='B:220 6:7'>Job 6:7</a>; <a href='B:220 15:23'>Job 15:23</a>). Again we fail to find in Elihu a totally truthful and sympathetic mediator; and we look for another, finally fulfilled in the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> His flesh is so consumed away, that it can’t be seen. His bones that were not seen stick out-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The reference to consumed flesh seems somewhat exaggerated. The same phrase is used in <a href='B:240 5:11'>Pro 5:11</a> for judgment for sin. But the prologue has made it clear that Job's sufferings were not a punishment for his sin. The righteous was to suffer in order to demonstrate something to others. And Elihu again appears out of full step with the Divine basis of things concerning Job.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Yes, his soul draws near to the pit, and his life to the destroyers-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu appears to hold some pagan ideas that there were "those who bring death" (ESV) who meet and greet those who die. This isn't the Biblical picture of death and the grave, and yet again, we get the feeling that Elihu is not completely in line with God, although some of his views are repeated by God later.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If there is beside him an angel, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to show to man what is right for him-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu seems to be suggesting that unless Job makes use of Elihu's offer of being a mediator / "interpreter" (<a href='B:220 33:6'>Job 33:6</a>), then he is going to die the death of the condemned (:24). But this again misses the point of the parameters set in the prologue. Job is not going to die as a result of his sufferings. Elihu is not going to prove Job's saviour.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> then God is gracious to him, and says, ‘Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again, this isn't what happened. God's grace was not mediated to Job through Elihu being a mediator who made a ransom payment for Job; although Elihu clearly liked to image himself like that (<a href='B:220 33:6'>Job 33:6</a>). This primitive idea of ransom payment through a mediator is completely debunked by God's final appearance to justify and save Job. His grace to Job was not predicated upon Elihu, nor in fact any mediator nor ransom payment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> His flesh shall be fresher than a child’s. He returns to the days of his youth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Indeed Job's fortunes were revived, but not thanks to Elihu's mediation (see on :23,24). Job indeed longed to return "to the days of my youth" (<a href='B:220 29:4'>Job 29:4</a>); and Elihu is offering Job the power to return, thanks to his mediation (see on :23).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He prays to God, and He is gracious to him, so that he sees His face with joy. He restores to man his righteousness-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is indeed what happened to Job. He was 'restored', he prayed to God for the friends (<a href='B:220 42:10'>Job 42:10</a>), and felt as if he had seen God's face (<a href='B:220 42:5'>Job 42:5</a>). The point is that this revival of Job happened exactly as Elihu said- but not thanks to his mediation (see on :23,24). It was predicated purely upon God's direct grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He sings before men, and says, ‘I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it didn’t profit me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The return of the prodigal son foreshadowed the final repentance of the Jews (note how that parable is based on <a href='B:10 43:16'>Gen 43:16</a>; <a href='B:10 45:14-15'>Gen 45:14-15</a>). But Job's decision to say "I have sinned::. and it didn't profit me" also connects with the prodigal son (<a href='B:490 15:21'>Luk 15:21</a>), thus again associating him with the Jews in their suffering and repentance:&nbsp;LXX "Even then a man shall blame himself, saying, What kind of things have I done? and he has not punished me according to the full amount of my sins". This has special reference to the exiles, who admitted that they had not been punished according to their sins (<a href='B:150 9:13'>Ezr 9:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He has redeemed my soul from going into the pit. My life shall see the light’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The 'redemption' of the exiles was to be predicated likewise upon their repentance (<a href='B:300 31:11'>Jer 31:11</a> s:w:). But this was to be possible without any mediator figure; Elihu failed to be that figure, just as the various possible Messiah figures didn't come to anything. But salvation was still possible through repentance eliciting God's direct restorative grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, God works all these things, twice, yes three times, with a man-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Perhaps the idea is that God has offered Job a way out two or three times, and he has rejected it. However this would reflect Elihu again missing the point of the prologue's explanation of why the sufferings were coming upon Job. They were not condemnation for his personal sins, from which he could only be saved by repentance and response to visions given by God. This is Elihu's position, and it is simply at variance with the parameters given in the prologue.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> to bring back his soul from the pit, that he may be enlightened with the light of the living-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> It seems that Elihu had been through Job's very experiences, of 'death' and rising again: "He has delivered my soul from death, that my life may praise him in the light. Hearken, Job, and hear me" (33:30,31 LXX). And this is exactly what Job did. As Job was to be the representative saviour of the friends, so perhaps Elihu was to be for Job.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Mark well, Job, and listen to me. Hold your peace, and I will speak-</p><h4> See on :30. These are Job's words of <a href='B:220 13:13'>Job 13:13</a>. I noted on :1,2 that Elihu often repeats Job's words and style. Perhaps the collective impression is that Elihu's many words are no better than Job's; he is as desirous that his words be taken as 'truth' just as much as Job and the friends.</h4>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If you have anything to say, answer me. Speak, for I desire to justify you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu's speech so far has been so self-justifying and critical of Job that we as the audience struggle to believe that he really desires to justify Job. And we are to learn that Job can be justified only by God and not man. And his justification is certainly not going to be on account of his speaking any more words. The fact Job doesn't say anything (:33) is because he clearly doesn't believe Elihu can justify him. God's final appearance and justification of Job, with no reference of Elihu nor usage of his offer of being the mediator desired (:6), is proof enough that Elihu is simply not completely God's representative.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If not, listen to me. Hold your peace, and I will teach you wisdom- The impression is that in the drama, there is now a period of silence. Job says nothing (see on :32). Although he could have taken issue with much of what Elihu says, he doesn't. He is learning that verbal response is of no value and will not help toward resolution of matters with God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Moreover Elihu answered-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This part of the speech is largely addressed to "you wise men" (:2) and "men of understanding" (:10). The friends are in view, but this serves to confirm Job's claim that sages and those reputed for wisdom are often wrong.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Hear my words, you wise men. Give ear to me, you who have knowledge-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As in :34, Elihu considers that any who is wise will agree with him, that he is wise and is speaking wisdom. But this is a circular, self-justifying argument. Or he could be referring to the friends sarcastically as "wise men" when he proceeds to bitterly criticize them. Seeing at times he repeats their arguments, we again wonder what to make of Elihu; and that unclarity is intentional; see on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For the ear tries words, as the palate tastes food-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He is quoting Job (<a href='B:220 12:11'>Job 12:11</a>). Elihu thereby is attempting to repeat what is good in Job's arguments whilst condemning him where he is wrong. But as I have argued on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a> and often, Elihu may simply be a literary device to summarize the arguments so far.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Let us choose for us that which is right. Let us know among ourselves what is good-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Right" is mishpat, 'judgment'; he is urging the friends to come to a just judgment on the case. This slightly misses the point which God is to make- that He alone is the judge. The only judgment the friends are entitled to come to is that Job has maintained his faith despite adversity, contrary to their original suspicion. But this seems to be behind Paul's words in <a href='B:590 5:21'>1Th 5:21</a> "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good", which is in the context of using "prophesyings" (<a href='B:590 5:20'>1Th 5:20</a>)- i:e. the true word of God- to analyze and reject false Judaist teaching that was claimed to be inspired. We are left wondering whether Paul is merely using the outline principle, or is interpreting Elihu as the true prophet of God and Job as a false reasoner, doing so under the guise of speaking the Truth, seeing he was a prophet.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For Job has said, ‘I am righteous-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job never actually says this. He doesn't claim to be sinless and accepts he isn't. Job's argument has been that in the legal case he feels he is in with God, he is right. Elihu appears to twist this.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>God has taken away my right-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job has said this (<a href='B:220 27:2'>Job 27:2</a>), but in the sense that he feels frustrated that God is not participating in the legal case and is in that sense denying him justice. So many of Elihu's quotations of Job leave us internally debating as to whether he is citing him fairly and in context, and whether he is in fact adding to Job's words. He is certainly not the sympathetic mediator we have been led by the story line to expect.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> notwithstanding my right I am considered a liar. My wound is incurable, though I am without disobedience’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again Elihu is putting words in Job's mouth. He just didn't say this. He has insisted he will not lie (<a href='B:220 27:4'>Job 27:4</a>) but that doesn't make him "a liar"- unless like the friends, Elihu is arguing that Job is in fact a sinner. Job has complained about suffering a wound or arrow (<a href='B:220 6:4'>Job 6:4</a>) when he has not been disobedient. But Elihu is out of line with the prologue in criticizing Job about this; for there it was made clear that indeed he would suffer but not because he had been disobedient.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> What man is like Job, who drinks scorn like water-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This seems at best an unnecessary comment, intended to mock Job, rather than to justify him- as Elihu had claimed he wanted to. He appears to be alluding to the words of Eliphaz in <a href='B:220 15:16'>Job 15:16</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> who goes in company with the workers of iniquity, and walks with wicked men?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As it stands, this is an untruth. But Elihu isn't rebuked by God for this. Rather is he perhaps just summarizing the arguments of the friends. LXX "saying, I have not sinned, nor committed ungodliness, nor had fellowship with workers of iniquity, to go with the ungodly".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For he has said, ‘It profits a man nothing that he should delight himself with God’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again, this purports to be a citation of Job's words when it isn't. Job has indeed lamented that he who delighted himself with God was suffering all the same. But that was indeed the situation, as the prologue makes clear. LXX, perhaps seeking to justify Elihu, has: "For thou shouldest not say, There shall be no visitation of a man, whereas there is a visitation on him from the Lord".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Therefore listen to me, you men of understanding-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :2, this is circular reasoning. Elihu is saying that any wise man will listen to him and agree with him. The argument feels somewhat manipulative.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Far be it from God, that He should do wickedness, from the Almighty, that He should commit iniquity-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is a typical debating technique; implying an awful conclusion arises from the argument of the opponent, even if they haven't stated that. And even though their supposed argument has been misquoted and unfairly summarized (see on :9 etc:). In theological squabbles, this kind of thing is often done. "If you believe what he says [which is being misquoted anyway], then effectively you are saying [something awful] about God".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For the work of a man He will render to him, and cause every man to find according to his ways-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This was the argument of Eliphaz (<a href='B:220 4:8'>Job 4:8</a>); Job's sufferings were to be understood as judgment for sin, which therefore Job has committed. The idea of future and ultimate judgment at a last day of judgment has been overlooked.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Yes surely, God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert justice-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As explained on :10, this is a very manipulative argument. Elihu is saying that Job's position (which as noted on :9 he misquotes) implies God is wicked and unjust. But Job has never said nor implied this. Far from being keen to justify Job, Elihu acts more like a vicious minded prosecutor- although I have argued elsewhere that he is merely a literary device to summarize the arguments of the friends, adding no new material to their arguments (see on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who put Him in charge of the earth? Or who has appointed Him over the whole world?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The following statement of God's greatness is true as far as it goes, but Job would have agreed with it. Elihu is implying that Job disagrees with it. And this again is a parade example of where dialogue goes wrong. One party goes on at length about a position which their opponent agrees with, because they are failing to understand 'the other', but are arguing against a straw man position.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If He set His heart on Himself, if He gathered to Himself His spirit and His breath-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The whole of creation keeps on going as a result of God having a heart that bleeds for people. “If he causes his heart to return unto himself”, the whole of creation would simply cease (<a href='B:220 34:14'>Job 34:14</a> RVmg:). His spirit is His heart and mind, as well as physical power. Creation is kept going not by clockwork, but by the conscious outpouring of His Spirit, by the fact that our creator has a constantly and passionately outgoing spirit toward us. In times of depression we need to remember this; that they very fact the world is still going, the planet still moves, atoms stay in their place and all matter still exists</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> is proof that the God who has a heart that bleeds for us is still there, with His heart going out to us His creation. And the spirit of the Father must be in us His children.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> all flesh would perish together, and man would turn again to dust-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is indeed the case (<a href='B:230 104:29'>Psa 104:29</a>), but Elihu seems to be deploying the argument that Job effectively thinks God's Spirit is not active in the world any more (:14); and Job is wrong, because in this case, he would not be alive. But Job wasn't doubting this, indeed he wonders as to why God keeps him alive "every moment". We can reflect that man's returning to dust is indeed his lot, the result of his sin (<a href='B:10 3:19'>Gen 3:19</a>); but until that point, God's Spirit keeps us from returning to dust (:14). His Spirit is therefore keeping us alive by grace every moment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If now you have understanding, hear this. Listen to the voice of my words-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :2,10, Elihu is implying that every man of understanding will listen to him with approval. Elihu certainly comes over as manipulative in his argument; and that is not required of anyone who is simply speaking God's word.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Shall even one who hates justice govern? Will you condemn him who is righteous and mighty?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu has misquoted Job (see on :9), and then claimed that Job's words were implying God was wicked and injustice. Elihu now solemnly proceeds to argue that such false accusation was inappropriate even against human rulers; and was unspeakably awful against God. All this is a false path of logic and typical of dialogue gone wrong, exaggerating the implications of the other's argument. However we can read the argument as Elihu saying that Job can not be a ruler himself, because he mocks others who are in authority (:18,19).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who says to a king, ‘Vile!’ or to nobles, ‘Wicked!’?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Is it fit to say to a King (God), Thou art wicked? and to princes (Angels), ye are ungodly?". Here Elihu is rebuking Job for wrongly accusing the Angels, who had brought the trials. But as noted on :17, this is an exaggeration of Job's position.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who doesn’t respect the persons of princes, nor respects the rich more than the poor; for they all are the work of His hands-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The argument seems to be that the God who has created all men therefore doesn't show favour to the rich ones more than the poor ones. The fact we are all created beings makes us equal before our creator. He doesn't therefore respect persons; but Job, according to Elihu, mocks God as vile and wicked (:18). As often happens in dysfunctional dialogue, Elihu is jumping from one false implication about Job to another. His argument that God doesn't accept the faces [NEV "persons"] of men is finally proven totally false when God accepts the face of Job in intercession for the friends (s:w. <a href='B:220 42:9'>Job 42:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In a moment they die, even at midnight. The people are shaken and pass away. The mighty are taken away without a hand-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The later application of Job to Hezekiah and the exiles would be in the midnight destruction of the Assyrians (<a href='B:120 19:35'>2Ki 19:35</a>) and in the promise that the kingdoms of the world which dominated the exiles would be destroyed without human hand (<a href='B:340 2:34'>Dan 2:34</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For His eyes are on the ways of a man. He sees all his goings-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu is implying that Job considers that God's eyes don't see him. But Job so often states the opposite. Elihu, representing the arguments of the friends, has reasoned from one false implication to another, until he ends up accusing Job of believing the very opposite of what Job has stated.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> There is no darkness, nor thick gloom, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job hardly appears to be hiding himself from God. He indeed complains that God appears to be hidden from him, and he earnestly seeks God's face and a meeting with Him in judgment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For He doesn’t need to consider a man further, that he should go before God in judgment-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea seems to be that man is automatically in God's judgment presence. This is what God is going to later imply by His appearance and demonstration of His presence in creation. I suggested on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a> that the function of Elihu in the narrative is to summarize the position of the friends, and to give a foretaste of God's position.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He breaks in pieces mighty men in ways past finding out, and sets others in their place-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The present tenses imply Elihu thinks that God's judgments are revealed in this life (:23), involving breaking the mighty in pieces and replacing them with others. He clearly has Job in view. But Job's perspective is better and truer; God judges not so much now, as at the last day. Likewise the exiles had looked in vain for the breaking in pieces of their oppressors, and <a href='B:340 2:34'>Dan 2:34</a> explains that this is to only happen at the last day.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Therefore He takes knowledge of their works. He overturns them in the night, so that they are destroyed-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As argued on :24, Elihu is assuming that Divine judgment happens right now, with God destroying men at night because He has noticed their sins. This is not only untrue, it is totally out of step with the prologue's explanation of why Job is suffering.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He strikes them as wicked men in the open sight of others-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This appears to be justifying the friends; they had openly seen Job's being stricken.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> because they turned aside from following Him, and wouldn’t pay attention to any of His ways-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This was totally untrue of Job, as the prologue makes clear. Job had not cursed God and died, he had retained his integrity.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> so that they caused the cry of the poor to come to Him. He heard the cry of the afflicted-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is simply repeating the assumption of the friends; Job is suffering, therefore he sinned, and they have speculated that he abused the poor, and God had heard their cry and was punishing Job. For Elihu to repeat this, when Job has denied it and given evidence to that effect, and the prologue has stated he is righteous and not suffering because of any sin::. surely demonstrates that Elihu is phony, if we consider him as an individual. But he is, I suggest, introduced into the narrative to summarize the arguments of the friends; see on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> When He gives quietness, who then can condemn?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But Job is not condemning God, and to imply this is wrong:&nbsp;When He hides His face, who then can see Him? Alike whether to a nation, or to a man-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God hid His face from the exiles (s:w. <a href='B:50 31:17-18'>Deu 31:17-18</a>; <a href='B:50 32:20'>Deu 32:20</a>; <a href='B:290 8:17'>Isa 8:17</a>; <a href='B:290 54:8'>Isa 54:8</a>; <a href='B:290 59:2'>Isa 59:2</a>; <a href='B:290 64:7'>Isa 64:7</a>; <a href='B:300 33:5'>Jer 33:5</a>; <a href='B:330 39:23'>Eze 39:23</a>), and again, His apparent hiding of His face from Job was not because Job had sinned but because he was suffering as representative of his people. Hence "whether to a nation, or to a man".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> that the Godless man may not reign, that there be no one to ensnare the people-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "causing a hypocrite to be king, because of the waywardness of the people". Elihu clearly expresses the friends' perspective, that although Job has been a ruler, he has been deposed by God because he is a hypocrite and is ensnaring people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For has any said to God, ‘I am guilty, but I will not offend any more-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This kind of oblique reference to Job comes over as disingenuous. Elihu is telling Job how he ought to repent, for things which clearly Job has not been guilty of, as explained on the previous verses. He is repeating the language of all three friends (<a href='B:220 5:8'>Job 5:8</a>; <a href='B:220 8:5'>Job 8:5</a>; <a href='B:220 11:13-15'>Job 11:13-15</a>). That Job does finally repent in similar words is a sign of his humility. Although falsely accused and urged to repent in a certain form of words, he uses those words to repent- even though he is innocent of the charges. He realizes he has not responded perfectly to the trials brought upon him, and recognizes that although counted perfect by God, that was by grace, and he himself had sinned. The RVmg. here offers "though I have not offended"; in which case, Elihu is urging Job to confess sin even if he hasn't done it. This kind of burdening others with false guilt happens frequently amongst religious people. There is true guilt, which we should take before God; and false guilt, which we need not take and indeed must not take.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Teach me that which I don’t see. If I have done iniquity, I will do it no more’?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Finally Job does repent, but he doesn't need to ask God to reveal his sin to him. This realization of sin is elicited by the revelation of God Himself. It didn't need Elihu and the friends to elicit it; they are therefore revealed as failures.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Shall His recompense be as you desire, that you refuse it? For you must choose, and not I-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea of the Hebrew appears to be that Job cannot decide God's judgment as he desires; and Job was refusing to accept God's judgment because it was not as he wished. But God's judgment has not yet been revealed, and his sufferings were not a part of any judgment upon him for personal sins. The prologue has made this clear.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Therefore speak what you know-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job remains silent before Elihu, as the Lord before His false accusers. He is learning the lesson that human words uttered before humans are inappropriate in these situations. He has learned that the dialogue is broken and it is not only pointless but counter productive to continue it. We can imagine a pause for silence in the drama at this point.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Men of understanding will tell me, yes, every wise man who hears me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "Because the wise in heart shall say this, and a wise man listens to my word". As in :2,10, Elihu considers that any who is wise will agree with him, that he is wise and is speaking wisdom. But this is a circular, self-justifying argument.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>‘Job speaks without knowledge. His words are without wisdom’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job does finally repent in similar words. This is a sign of his humility. Although falsely accused and urged to repent in a certain form of words, he uses those words to repent- even though he is innocent of the charges. He realizes he has not responded perfectly to the trials brought upon him, and recognizes that although counted perfect by God, that was by grace, and he himself had sinned. Elihu's appeal here is that of God in <a href='B:220 38:2'>Job 38:2</a>; <a href='B:220 42:3'>Job 42:3</a>. But this is not to say that Elihu is God's representative in all that he says, for our commentary so far has demonstrated that this is just not the case. I have argued that Elihu functions as a way of summarizing the arguments so far presented, and giving a foretaste of God's final argument.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I wish that Job were tried to the end, because of his answering like wicked men-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job's attitude had been that when God had finished trying him, he would come forth as gold (s:w. <a href='B:220 23:10'>Job 23:10</a>). But Elihu, far from wanting sincerely to justify Job, clearly wants to see Job condemned "to the end". He labels him a "wicked" man, when the prologue has laboured the point that this is not the case.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For he adds rebellion to his sin. He claps his hands among us, and multiplies his words against God- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>But God says that Job spoke what was right about Him. "Among us" reflects Elihu's identity with the friends. LXX "for iniquity will be reckoned against us, if we speak many words before the Lord".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Moreover Elihu answered-</p><h4> Here Elihu claims he is adding something new to the dialogue so far. For he condemns both Job and the friends. We have been set up to expect and hope that he will contribute something new, to an argument that has started to go around in circles. But we are disappointed; for Elihu only repeats the arguments of the friends.</h4>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Do you think this to be your right, or do you say, ‘My righteousness is more than God’s’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The words of Job are misquoted in :3, and so this accusation is wrong too. Elihu repeatedly jumps from one false premise to another. Job was not claiming to be more righteous than God, in fact he has said quite the opposite. This is what happens when the words and situation and personality of the other is not really engaged with, and their words are made to fit our preconceived assumptions of what we think they are really saying.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> that you ask, ‘What advantage will it be to you? What profit shall I have, if I had not sinned?’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job's words of <a href='B:220 21:15'>Job 21:15</a> about the sinful children of sinners are misquoted by Elihu here as if Job has said this about himself, and about there being generally no profit in serving or praying to God. Yet Elihu claims to speak on God's behalf. We can however understand Elihu as merely reiterating the position of the friends, as a kind of summary at the end of their dialogues; and at the same time giving a foretaste of the speeches of God which are to come. He therefore serves as a literary device in the story, particularly required for an illiterate audience hearing or viewing the drama presented, and having inevitably forgotten the details of all the positions previously presented.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Further, the reference seems to be also to Elihu's words in <a href='B:220 22:2'>Job 22:2</a> "Can a man be profitable to God? Surely he who is wise is profitable to himself". These words are applied here by Elihu to Job. It seems an obvious and unkindly wilful misquotation- until we accept the viewpoint that Elihu is not so much speaking for himself, as summarizing for the audience the arguments presented so far, with Elihu playing the role of the friends in summarizing the argument so far.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The idols and the Gentile nations amongst whom the exiles lived would not "profit" them (s:w. <a href='B:290 30:5-6'>Isa 30:5-6</a>; <a href='B:290 44:9-10'>Isa 44:9-10</a>); but as the book of Esther makes clear, they were profiting well, apparently, from remaining amongst them. But the only real "profit" would be if they quit all that and returned to Zion (<a href='B:290 48:17'>Isa 48:17</a> s:w:). But they saw no "profit" in being forgiven and restored as God's people (s:w. <a href='B:220 35:3'>Job 35:3</a>). Rather they considered the temporal "profit" of life in Babylon as far greater profit.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I will answer you, and your companions with you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu claims he is adding something new to the dialogue so far. For he condemns both Job and the friends. We have been set up to expect and hope that he will contribute something new, to an argument that has started to go around in circles. But we are disappointed; for Elihu only repeats the arguments of the friends.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Look to the heavens, and see. See the skies, which are higher than you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The huge height of God above man doesn't mean, contrary to how Elihu argues, that God is insensitive to human sin and righteousness (:6,7). God's response is to display His power and demonstrate the omnipresence of His Spirit- not just in the cosmos, but in very intimate and concealed processes upon the earth. He Himself as it were 'comes down' to demonstrate that this argument and feeling is so untrue; and He was to yet more powerfully rend the heavens and come down to earth in His manifestation in His Son.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If you have sinned, what effect do you have against Him? If your transgressions are multiplied, what do you do to Him?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is repeating the arguments of the friends, that God is so far from man that He is insensitive to human sin. Nothing could be more untrue. Elihu's promise to contribute something radically new and helpful to the discussion (see on :4) is felt by us to be very hollow.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If you are righteous, what do you give Him? Or what does He receive from your hand?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The prologue has stressed God's positive view of Job's righteousness. Clearly enough, He is sensitive to human morality. Elihu is contradicting himself by arguing that God is too distant to be much affected by human behaviour, and yet then calling down God's wrath upon Job for his behaviour.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Your wickedness may hurt a man as you are, and your righteousness may profit a son of man-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu is so wrong. God is hurt, terribly, by human sin. The prophets of the exile made this point in multiple ways. He was "broken" by their unfaithfulness to Him, feeling it as Hosea did, as if His wife had been unfaithful to Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> By reason of the multitude of oppressions they cry out. They cry for help by reason of the arm of the mighty-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This sounds like Israel in captivity in Egypt and Babylon crying out. Elihu's accusation is that Job has cried out because of his affliction, but not to God his maker (:10). Elihu was wrong. Job had indeed cried out to God. And the exiles in Babylon could have followed his path to restoration.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But none says, ‘Where is God my Maker, who gives songs in the night-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> We wonder if Paul and Silas had meditated about this as they sung songs in the night. The Passover festival was the time when songs were sung at night. The exiles were bidden believe that they too would be released from captivity. But none was found amongst them who truly sought for God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> who teaches us more than the animals of the earth, and makes us wiser than the birds of the sky?’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God's answer is that the animals do teach us of God's ways. This would appear to imply His disagreement with Elihu on this point.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> There they cry, but none gives answer, because of the pride of evil men-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu's argument is that Job has cried out because of his affliction, just as all sufferers do (:9). But he is not heard because his cry is "empty" (:13) and he is a proud, evil man. Yet the prologue has stressed Job is not evil.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Surely God will not hear an empty cry, neither will the Almighty regard it-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Empty" is the word for 'vanities', often used of idols. Elihu is sliding headlong down a path of false logic which leads him to ever more seriously slander Job. He is implying that Job's crying out in his sufferings is in fact a crying out to idols; for Job is an idolater. The parameters of the prologue have been overlooked; just as the foundational principles of God's word which are to guide and frame our relationships are so often likewise ignored.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Job feels he has 'cried out' to God for justice and not been heard (<a href='B:220 19:7'>Job 19:7</a>; <a href='B:220 30:20'>Job 30:20</a>); and that there is nothing wrong with crying out to God in distress, it is a perfectly natural reaction (<a href='B:220 24:12'>Job 24:12</a>). One comment upon this is that the young ravens cry out to God for food and yet are not always heard (<a href='B:220 38:41'>Job 38:41</a> s:w:). But God in the wider picture sustains all of creation by grace. Job feels hurt that God has not responded to his 'crying out' because he says that when the needy cried out to him, he had heard (<a href='B:220 29:12'>Job 29:12</a> s:w:). But here we see his works based approach; he thought that his response to those who cried out to him meant that therefore God must respond to his crying out. And God is not so primitive. His apparent silence is because His response is not predicated upon human works and charity. It is by grace alone, as is taught in His final appearance to Job. The exiles likewise were to finally see the response to their crying out to God in the restoration (<a href='B:290 58:9'>Isa 58:9</a>), just as their representative Jonah cried out to God from the belly of sheol amidst the sea of nations, and was heard (s:w. <a href='B:390 2:2'>Jon 2:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> How much less when you say you don’t see Him. The cause is before Him, and you wait for Him!-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This seems a cruel twist of Job's great statement of faith in <a href='B:220 19:25-27'>Job 19:25-27</a>; he believed that although he didn't now see God, yet he would do so in a bodily form in the resurrection and judgment of the last day.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But now, because He has not visited in His anger, neither does He greatly regard arrogance-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu is again wrong. God does greatly regard the sin of arrogance, and the restoration prophets repeatedly cite pride as the essential reason for the judgment of Israel. Elihu here argues that because God has not judged Job "in His anger", "therefore" Job speaks as he does (:16). But this is obviously contradictory to Elihu's position that Job's sufferings are exactly because God is angry with Job.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> therefore Job opens his mouth with empty talk, and he multiplies words without knowledge- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>See on :15. "Words without knowledge" is exactly what God accuses Job of (<a href='B:220 38:2'>Job 38:2</a> s:w:). Elihu functions in the story as a means of summarizing the arguments so far, and giving us a foretaste of the Divine judgment which is to come.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu also continued and said- Elihu as it were speaks up for God in this chapter; although by this stage, we the audience are deeply sceptical of him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Bear with me a little, and I will show you; for I still have something to say on God’s behalf-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu seems to utter four speeches, more than the friends. We are set up to expect some new contribution; but we are already sceptical as to whether Elihu is going to add anything to the argument, as he is repeating the essential argument of the friends. Elihu appears to be a literary device to summarize the friends' arguments, reminding us of Job's weaker moments in his self-righteousness, and giving a foretaste of God's argument which is yet to come. He now moves on to focus upon God's argument, although as we listen to him, we are wondering what God really has to say, seeing Elihu lacks integrity. This all leads up to our thankful marvel when God Himself does appear and speak.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I will get my knowledge from afar, and will ascribe righteousness to my Maker-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu often speaks of his "opinion". "Opinion" really means "knowledge", and the Hebrew word is used only by Elihu (<a href='B:220 32:6'>Job 32:6</a>; <a href='B:220 32:10'>Job 32:10</a>; <a href='B:220 32:17'>Job 32:17</a>). He claims his knowledge comes from "afar", from God (<a href='B:220 36:3'>Job 36:3</a>), but he also recognizes that God alone has totality of "knowledge" (<a href='B:220 37:16'>Job 37:16</a>). So we are again left with Elihu as an enigma, not totally reflecting God's knowledge, although considering that his view is in line with God's. This enigma of Elihu is purposeful; as explained on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a>, his function is to elicit our opinions; we too who like to think our view is in line with God's, and yet admitting we lack His total knowledge.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For truly my words are not false. One who is perfect in knowledge is with you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> We have seen Elihu repeatedly misquoting Job and fabricating things which Job never said. This skepticism we have about Elihu's promise to speak only truly lead us to likewise immediately question whether he was indeed "perfect in knowledge". That is after all a huge claim for any mortal man to make. Elihu uses the same phrase about God in <a href='B:220 37:16'>Job 37:16</a>. Elihu seems here to at best be claiming to speak directly on God's behalf, if not to be somehow Divine. But the friends effectively do the same, and it is all these failed attempts to speak on God's behalf which lead up to the necessity and power of God's final appearance. See on :6.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, God is mighty, and doesn’t despise anyone. He is mighty in strength of understanding-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job felt despised or cast away by God (<a href='B:220 10:14'>Job 10:14</a>) just as the exiles did, but this wasn't the case; God will not despise or cast away His servant people (<a href='B:220 36:5'>Job 36:5</a>; <a href='B:290 41:9'>Isa 41:9</a>; <a href='B:300 31:37'>Jer 31:37</a>; <a href='B:300 33:26'>Jer 33:26</a>). The grace of it all was that although he wanted to cast away his life (<a href='B:220 7:16'>Job 7:16</a>; <a href='B:220 9:21'>Job 9:21</a>), just as God's people cast away His covenant (<a href='B:290 8:6'>Isa 8:6</a>; <a href='B:290 30:12'>Isa 30:12</a>; <a href='B:300 6:19'>Jer 6:19</a>), God would not cast away His people in their exile and depression (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a>), even if they cast him away. See on <a href='B:220 26:2'>Job 26:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He doesn’t preserve the life of the wicked, but gives to the afflicted their right-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Yet Job has repeatedly complained that God preserves his life when Job instead wishes to die. Job is living evidence that God preserves life; for it seems Job was indeed preserved by God's grace alone at the point of death, to the point that he was experiencing a living death. Again, Elihu is shown to be obviously wrong, straight after his claim to be somehow Divinely "perfect in knowledge" (:4).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He doesn’t withdraw His eyes from the righteous, but with kings on the throne, He sets them forever, and they are exalted-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This was exemplified in the Divine influence upon Persian kings like Cyrus in allowing the restoration. Hence the mention of kings on the throne is particularly relevant to the exiles. We recall how Ezra and Nehemiah experienced God's eyes and "good hand" upon them, so that kings sitting on thrones made decrees of restoration. The contrast is with how Job was righteous in his own eyes (s:w. <a href='B:220 32:1'>Job 32:1</a>). What matters is that God's eyes are upon us, imputing righteousness to us in His view.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If they are bound in fetters, and are taken in the cords of afflictions-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The force of "then" in :9 is that if people suffer, then God uses it to help them toward knowing themselves and repentance. This may be true on one level; and the reference to the fetters and cords of imprisonment continue the similarity with the captives in Babylon, who were intended to be reformed by their experiences so that God could bring about their restoration. But this isn't really the case with Job. His sufferings weren't in order to reform him nor to elicit his repentance, as the prologue states clearly. Elihu is wrong to say that 'Suffering is intended to elicit repentance, you're suffering, therefore, fess up and repent'. That was the view of the friends, and it is not appropriate to Job. It would be a very surface level reading of the book which concluded that this is the intention of the sufferings. The question of the book is not that of suffering, but rather "how can a man be just with God?".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> then He shows them their work, and their transgressions, that they have behaved themselves proudly-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See on :8. The intention of Job's sufferings was not so that he himself would learn and repent. Again we must give full weight to the teaching of the prologue about this. The same words for "to show::. transgression" are used of how the prophets sought to show Israel their sin (<a href='B:290 58:1'>Isa 58:1</a>; <a href='B:400 3:8'>Mic 3:8</a>). But that was not by the prophets making their audience suffer. It was by direct appeal, and this is what God does at the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He also opens their ears to instruction, and commands that they return from iniquity-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job had been 'chastened' (s:w. "instruction"; <a href='B:220 5:17'>Job 5:17</a>). The positive effect of "chastening" is only experienced upon repentance, returning from iniquity. Judah in exile didn't repent, and so they were left with the problem of having been 'chastened' apparently in vain, and not experiencing a 'return' to the land because they didn't 'return' to God. The friends fail to realize that "chastening" may not necessarily be for our own personal sins; the suffering servant was 'chastened' not for his own sins, but to achieve our peace with God (<a href='B:290 53:5'>Isa 53:5</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If they listen and serve Him, they shall spend their days in prosperity, and their years in pleasures-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job had listened and served God, and is described by God as His "servant". But his days weren't spent in pleasure and prosperity. Again and again, Elihu's position is simply repeating that of the friends, and he fails in his promise to add something radically new to the dialogue. Job has earlier argued that this simplistic view was wrong because the wicked did indeed "spend their days in prosperity" (s:w. <a href='B:220 21:13'>Job 21:13</a>). Elihu is quoting Job's words but absolutely failing to engage with his argument.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But if they don’t listen, they shall perish by the sword; they shall die without knowledge-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu's argument is like that of the friends- that unless Job repents, he will "perish by the sword". But the prologue has made it clear that Job's life is to be preserved. He will not perish by the sword. And yet the idea that Job is "without knowledge" is repeated by God (<a href='B:220 38:2'>Job 38:2</a>) and accepted by Job (<a href='B:220 42:3'>Job 42:3</a>). Again, we see Elihu functioning as an introduction to God's ideas. We at this point wonder whether Job is indeed "without knowledge". Elihu's language provokes that question; and then we have it answered in God's usage of the phrase. Elihu's function is to provoke the question.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But those who are Godless in heart lay up anger. They don’t cry for help when He binds them-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job did indeed cry to God for help (see on <a href='B:220 35:13'>Job 35:13</a>). To state he had a "Godless heart" is simply untrue and inappropriate for Elihu to judge. There are several allusions to Job in Romans, all of which confirm that Job is set up as symbolic of apostate Israel; although he was so as their representative, without being himself astray from God. For he was the righteous suffering the punishment of the wicked. An example is Elihu's description here of Job as a hypocrite heaping up wrath, which connects with Paul's description of the Jews as treasuring up unto themselves "wrath against&nbsp;the day of wrath" (<a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They die in youth. Their life perishes among the unclean-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu is reasoning from the position that Job is about to die in relative youth; and he is lying there amongst the unclean, apparently terminally ill. All such reasoning is ignoring the prologue; for Job was not to die. His life would not perish but was to be preserved.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He delivers the afflicted by their affliction, and opens their ear in oppression-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As discussed on :9,10, Elihu's reasoning is not rooted in the Divine words stated in the prologue. The purpose of suffering was not for the reformation of Job. Job's deliverance was to be by grace, and not because he had learnt lessons from affliction.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Yes, He would have allured you out of distress, into a broad place, where there is no restriction. That which is set on your table would be full of fatness-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu implies that if Job repents, then he will be brought out from a narrow place into a broad place (<a href='B:220 36:16'>Job 36:16</a>). God perhaps comments on this by saying that the "broad place" is in fact the whole earth (<a href='B:220 38:18'>Job 38:18</a>). Man is already in freedom; it is a case of accepting it. Whilst I have argued that the idea that suffering leads to spiritual development and repentance was irrelevant in Job's case, it was relevant to Israel in outline terms, especially to the exiles in Babylon for whom the book was rewritten (see on <a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>). Elihu's speeches especially have many Chaldee influences in them, suggesting that an ancient Hebrew story was rewritten in Babylon, under inspiration. God's intention was likewise to allure His sinful people to the freedom of repentance (<a href='B:350 2:14'>Hos 2:14</a>), far from the restriction of captivity and judgment (s:w. <a href='B:290 9:1'>Isa 9:1</a>), to a feast of fat things in the restored kingdom (<a href='B:290 25:6'>Isa 25:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But you are full of the judgment of the wicked. Judgment and justice take hold of you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu implies that Job has refused God's offers of repentance (:16) because Job continues to suffer; and now Elihu in the next verses appears to relish describing the inevitable destruction of Job. This relishing in Job's judgment is far removed from the ways of the God who takes no pleasure in the death nor judgment of the wicked. Clearly Elihu is presented as out of step with God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Don’t let riches entice you to wrath, neither let the great size of a bribe turn you aside-</p><h4> The prologue began with the satan / sons of God / friends wondering whether Job's Divinely given wealth was the basis for his faith. But their initial doubts developed into various other theories- not least that Job's wealth was because he had accepted bribes. Now Elihu warns Job not to let his wealth allure him to Divine condemnation ["wrath"]; but rather to be allured by God's encouragement to repentance (:16). But we see how far Elihu has strayed from the initial issues. Perhaps the lesson is that once we start to question the integrity of heart in another believer, we will end up imagining all manner of slander against them. What began as passing conspiracy theory becomes solidified as actual slander in our hearts and then in our words. Quite apart from anything else, the dialogues are a worked example of how personal relationships break down once the Divine parameters bounding them are ignored. AV "Because there is wrath, beware lest he take thee away with his stroke: then a great ransom cannot deliver thee". The idea then would be that Job is foolish to think that his wealth can buy off Divine condemnation.</h4>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Would your wealth sustain you in distress, or all the might of your strength?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is as in :18, that Job is foolish to think that his wealth can buy off Divine condemnation. But he has not implied that. His wealth came from God's blessing, and was really his misfortune rather than his crime.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Don’t desire the night, when people are cut off in their place-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job's clear desire was to meet God in the light, and he himself has noted that it is the wicked who desire the night as they think they can sin in secret, hidden from God and man. Elihu's lack of basic moral framework for his dialogues leads him to do as the friends had done- speculate ever more wildly about Job's sins, and ever more dogmatically state that he has really done these things. This is the downward spiral of dialogue that is not started nor finished in love for the human person, but rather in jealousy.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Take heed, don’t regard iniquity; for you have chosen this rather than affliction-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu several times states that Job has made a choice; and he has chosen to continue in sin, which means the sufferings will continue, and shall lead him to death. Again, Elihu is far adrift from the guiding light of the prologue. For there it is clear that Job has absolutely no choice in the experience.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, God is exalted in His power. Who is a teacher like Him?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As discussed on :8-10, this continues Elihu's misplaced idea that God is trying to teach Job through his sufferings, and that Job isn't responding. Rather is it the friends, represented by Elihu, who are intended to learn from Job's sufferings.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who has prescribed His way for Him? Or who can say, ‘You have committed unrighteousness?’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job says that He is following in God's footsteps and vows to hold on to following God's way to the end. He is certainly not prescribing God's way, in the sense of telling Him which way He should take. Neither is Job accusing God of committing unrighteousness.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Remember that you magnify His work, whereof men have sung-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea may be as in GNB "He has always been praised for what he does; you also must praise him". Again, Elihu is setting up a straw man. Job has not refused to praise God. He is not out of line with the truly faithful, who have always sung God's praises.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> All men have looked thereon. Man sees it afar off-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu continues the theme of the friends; faithful men of old have seen things their way, and Job is out of step with them. He needs to repent and come to praise God along with them. This terrible need to be seen as in step with other believers and their positions and experiences is on one hand natural. But it can militate against a personal journey with God, and a leading by Him to the final "truth" of personal relationship with Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, God is great, and we don’t know Him. The number of His years is unsearchable-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Literally "the number of years". This is the same phrase as in <a href='B:220 15:20'>Job 15:20</a>: "The wicked man writhes in pain all his days, even the number of years that are laid up for the oppressor". &nbsp;Clearly he has Job in view, who was oppressed by raiders, and was apparently writhing in pain constantly. Eliphaz suggests that Job must suffer this for a Divinely decreed "number of years". This is the phrase used of the number of years Judah and Israel were to suffer for their sins in exile at the hands of their oppressors (<a href='B:330 4:5'>Eze 4:5</a>; <a href='B:340 9:2'>Dan 9:2</a>). "Laid up" is AV "hidden". Perhaps Elihu alludes to this when he uses the same phrase to say that "the number of years" cannot be "searched out" because God is great (<a href='B:220 36:26'>Job 36:26</a> AV). This may refer to how Daniel tried to search out the number of years Judah ought to be in captivity, and had to conclude that the 70 years time period was flexible, depending upon Judah's repentance and other preconditions. We note <a href='B:330 4:5'>Eze 4:5</a> gives a different period:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For He draws up the drops of water, which distil in rain from His vapour-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> It is possible that from about this point in the narrative, we are intended to imagine a thunderstorm developing. This begins with rain at this point. It comes to full term in the theophany where God Himself as it were comes down and speaks to men. See on <a href='B:220 36:33'>Job 36:33</a>; <a href='B:220 37:1-2'>Job 37:1-2</a>; <a href='B:220 38:34'>Job 38:34</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> which the skies pour down and which drop on man abundantly-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> All this is true, but Elihu is describing God's power and greatness in order to prove his point in :26; that Job's deep pain about his relationship with God is all rather irrelevant because God is so distant that He doesn't pay as much attention to us as we do to Him. This is so wrong. The reverse is true. God's goodness to man is not merely like God sending rain abundantly on all men, as part of the water cycle which runs on clockwork. God Himself will appear in the gathering clouds, to demonstrate that He is not absent in His greatness, but very present.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Yes, can any understand the spreading of the clouds, and the thunderings of His pavilion?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :28, Elihu points that God cannot be understood, and so all Job's angst is in vain. And yet of course he and the friends have just as much engaged in that seeking to understand God. God's own discussion of the clouds and thunderings is simply to speak His word of grace to Job out of them. They simply show that His greatness is in His grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, He spreads His light around Him. He covers the bottom of the sea-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This again has relevance to the exiles. They felt they were at the bottom of the sea of nations, just as Jonah felt he had gone down to the depths of the sea. And yet from there he was restored, just as the exiles could have been if they followed the path of Job.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For by these He judges the people. He gives food in abundance-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The "these" appear to refer to the clouds, a symbol of judgment and yet also providing rain which "gives food". Out of judgment comes blessing. But Elihu wrongly predicated this upon the personal repentance of Job. However the principle was true for the exiles; the judgment of Babylon could have led to their release and return to the land, enjoying the blessings of a restored Kingdom, "food in abundance". Hence LXX "For by them he will judge the nations". But this potential scenario didn't work out; Babylon and her confederate nations didn't fall in the dramatic, supernatural way envisaged, the Jews didn't repent, and most refused to participate in the possible restoration.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He covers His hands with the lightning, and commands it to strike the mark-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> AV "With clouds he covereth the light; and commandeth it not to shine by the cloud that cometh betwixt". This is Elihu's commentary upon Job's words in <a href='B:220 26:9'>Job 26:9</a>: "He encloses the face of His throne, and spreads His cloud upon it". As so often in the drama of Job, truths are presented but without context. This is indeed true; but Job and the exiles had to learn that the cloud that came between God and themselves was that of human sin (<a href='B:290 44:22'>Isa 44:22</a>), even though God responded by bringing that cloud (<a href='B:220 36:32'>Job 36:32</a>). The years of exile were the day of cloud (<a href='B:330 34:12'>Eze 34:12</a>; <a href='B:310 3:44'>Lam 3:44</a>). But through that cloud, the light of God's saving glory was still visible (<a href='B:220 37:15'>Job 37:15</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>God’s amazing control of events in the natural world is surely through Angelic influence. God gives the lightning- often associated with Angels- a specific charge [as He does to His Angels] that it “strike the mark”. Job has earlier complained that God is using him as target practice. Elihu goes along with this, and sees it reflected in the natural creation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Its noise tells about Him, and the livestock also concerning the storm that comes up- The idea is that the animals sensed the thunderstorm that was about to burst, and so should man. This again lends weight to the suggestion that a literal thunderstorm was gathering, which came to final term in God's theophany.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Yes, at this my heart trembles, and is moved out of its place-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu has in view the approaching thunderstorm (see on <a href='B:220 36:27'>Job 36:27</a>; <a href='B:220 36:33'>Job 36:33</a>). He says that just as the animals are trembling and moved because of it, so is he (<a href='B:220 36:33'>Job 36:33</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Hear, oh, hear the noise of His voice, the sound that goes out of His mouth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu asks Job to hear the voice of the thunderstorm (see on :1). Of course Job could hear it physically, but Elihu has the idea that there is a Divine voice within it. And this is indeed true, Elihu functions to introduce the appearance and speaking of God which begins in the next chapter.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He sends it forth under the whole sky, and His lightning to the ends of the earth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God was appealing not just to Job but to the ends of the eretz, the land promised to Abraham. This was the potential scenario possible at the restoration. The restoration prophets envisage the supernatural destruction of Babylon coinciding with the repentance of the exiles and leading to the repentance of a minority of the Gentiles at "the ends of the earth"; the borders of the eretz promised to Abraham where they were located, in Babylon and Assyria. The idea was that they would together form a new multi-ethnic people of God in the land, under a new covenant. But this potential didn't happen. For they didn't hear the voice of God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> After it a voice roars. He thunders with the voice of His majesty. He doesn’t hold back anything when His voice is heard-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu perceives there is a voice, a Divine voice, far beyond the literal roar of noise associated with the thunderstorm (see on :2). If that voice was "heard", as Elihu exhorts Job to hear it (:2), then nothing will be 'held back'. God is willing to do marvellous things (:5). This was of great relevance to the exiles. Had they heard / obeyed that prophetic voice, then the great potentials prophesied as possible in the restored Kingdom would have come true. God would have held nothing back. The Kingdom of God would again have been established in Israel.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God thunders marvellously with His voice. He does great things, which we can’t comprehend-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The great things God does are all conditional; when or if His voice is heard / obeyed (:4). What we read in the following verses is therefore pregnant with wider meaning than simply describing God's control of the natural creation, thoughts elicited by the bursting of the thunderstorm. This is why the language is used in the restoration prophets concerning what could have happened if the exiles had been obedient to the prophetic word. That God indeed "does great things" was recognized by Job as well as the friends (<a href='B:220 5:9'>Job 5:9</a>; <a href='B:220 9:10'>Job 9:10</a> s:w:). But they were to be taught now by the thunderstorm leading up to the actual revelation of God Himself that indeed God can do all things. "I know You can do all things" was Job's final response. The restoration likewise would have been a case of the Lord doing great things (<a href='B:360 2:21'>Joe 2:21</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For He says to the snow, ‘Fall on the earth’; likewise to the shower of rain, and to the showers of His mighty rain-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God's command to the water is understood as meaning that God's prophetic word of restoration could bring about the restoration of the Kingdom for the exiles (<a href='B:290 55:10-11'>Isa 55:10-11</a>). See on :5.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He seals up the hand of every man, that all men whom He has made may know it-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For the potentials planned by God to be realized, man must first realize he has no power of himself. His hand or power must be sealed up, so that God's prophetic word for His exiled, suffering people could be sealed up (s:w. <a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a>). This is what Job was taught, and it was what God wished the exiles to understand (see on :5).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Then the animals take cover, and remain in their dens-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As those responsive to the wind go into their "dens" (AV), so in turn out of its den or room comes the storm of Divine theophany (:9). As the animals were running in response to the storm (<a href='B:220 36:33'>Job 36:33</a>), so should all men. God's people were likewise bidden obediently enter their chambers in order to be saved from the wrath to come (<a href='B:290 26:20'>Isa 26:20</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Out of its room comes the storm, and cold out of the north-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See on :8. Just as destruction had been called forth upon Judah from the north, so God calls forth His prepared natural phenomena from the north:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> By the breath of God, ice is given-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The breath of God is His Spirit. And this was the point so relevant to the exiles. God's Spirit was potentially able to transform their entire existence, just as it operates throughout the cosmos and upon the earth.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And the breadth of the waters is frozen-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "He guides the water in whatever way he pleases". This is similar to the idea of the heart of kings being as water in His hands (Proverbs 21; Proverbs 1); Cyrus and the rulers at the time of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther were all under God's control, but His activity was dependent upon His people hearing His voice (see on :5).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Yes, He loads the thick cloud with moisture. He spreads abroad the cloud of His lightning-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> AV "By watering He wearieth the thick cloud". God created these thick clouds and could dissolve them at will, and maintains them within a perfect balance; whereas the exiles in their depression were under the impression that the thickness of the clouds meant that God could not therefore see nor judge (s:w. <a href='B:220 22:13-14'>Job 22:13-14</a>, see notes there). See on :15,16. But LXX "And if a cloud obscures what is precious to him, his light will disperse the cloud". This connects with the exiles being precious to Him (<a href='B:290 43:4'>Isa 43:4</a>). Even the cloud of His own anger with them could be dispersed by Him, such is His saving love and grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> It is turned around by His guidance, that they may do whatever He commands them on the surface of the habitable world-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Turned" is literally 'returned', and is pregnant with allusion to how God's prophetic word could make the exiles return. But that turning around was by "His guidance", AV "counsels". It was by response to God's word that this turn about could happen; see on :5.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> whether it is for correction, or for His land, or for grace, that He causes it to come-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The reference to God's land again begs for reference to the situation with the exiles. The whole suffering of Job / Israel was for multiple possible reasons. It was to correct, it was so that His Kingdom or land would be restored, and through it all the whole exercise was to parade His grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Listen to this, Job. Stand still, and consider the wondrous works of God-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> We perhaps imagine Job agitated and distracted. He is asked to calm himself and consider the thunderstorm and its implications. This is clearly preparing him for the final appearance of God's word to him through that storm which will begin in the next chapter. Clearly the function of Elihu is to prepare us for God's words and revelation which is to come.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Do you know how God controls them, and causes the lightning of His cloud to shine?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See on :11,16. Note the emphasis upon God's control of the clouds, and that clouds aren't random occurrences but all intricately balanced with His light shining within them. This is in response to the impression held by the exiles, and wrongly imputed to Job in <a href='B:220 22:13'>Job 22:13</a>, that the thickness of the Divine clouds meant He could not see nor judge them (<a href='B:290 29:15'>Isa 29:15</a>; <a href='B:290 40:27'>Isa 40:27</a>; <a href='B:300 23:24'>Jer 23:24</a>; <a href='B:310 3:44'>Lam 3:44</a>; <a href='B:330 8:12'>Eze 8:12</a>):&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This is perhaps commentary upon Job's words of <a href='B:220 26:9'>Job 26:9</a>: "He encloses the face of His throne, and spreads His cloud upon it". As so often in the drama of Job, truths are presented but without context. This is indeed true; but Job and the exiles had to learn that the cloud that came between God and themselves was that of human sin (<a href='B:290 44:22'>Isa 44:22</a>), even though God responded by bringing that cloud (<a href='B:220 36:32'>Job 36:32</a>). The years of exile were the day of cloud (<a href='B:330 34:12'>Eze 34:12</a>; <a href='B:310 3:44'>Lam 3:44</a>). But through that cloud, the light of God's saving glory was still visible (<a href='B:220 37:15'>Job 37:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Do you know the workings of the clouds, the wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See on :11,15. Elihu often speaks of his "opinion". "Opinion" really means "knowledge", and the Hebrew word is used only by Elihu (<a href='B:220 32:6'>Job 32:6</a>; <a href='B:220 32:10'>Job 32:10</a>; <a href='B:220 32:17'>Job 32:17</a>). He claims his knowledge comes from "afar", from God (<a href='B:220 36:3'>Job 36:3</a>), but he also recognizes that God alone has totality of "knowledge" (<a href='B:220 37:16'>Job 37:16</a>), although he also makes this claim about himself (see on <a href='B:220 36:4'>Job 36:4</a>). So we are again left with Elihu as an enigma, not totally reflecting God's knowledge, although considering that his view is in line with God's. This enigma of Elihu is purposeful; as explained on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a>, his function is to elicit our opinions; we too who like to think our view is in line with God's, and yet admitting we lack His total knowledge.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> You whose clothing is warm, when the earth is still by reason of the south wind?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> GNB "No, you can only suffer in the heat when the south wind oppresses the land". The land of Israel had indeed been oppressed and the people had suffered. But this was all because of their abusers who had as it were been blown in by God's wind / Spirit.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Can you, with Him, spread out the sky, which is strong as a cast metal mirror?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu seems to hold the ancient view that thee sky was in fact made of spread out material. This view, rather like the language of demons in the New Testament, is used without correction. Because the science is not the essential point; rather the idea is that the heavens are as a mirror, and by looking at the natural creation, one sees a reflection of God's work with us. And this is preparing us for God's words which are to soon come, which bid man do just this.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Teach us what we shall tell Him, for we can’t make our case by reason of darkness-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Earlier, Job had judged himself, setting in order his legal case, but declaring himself righteous (<a href='B:220 13:8'>Job 13:8</a>). By <a href='B:220 23:4'>Job 23:4</a>, Job is realizing that he needs to set his case in order before God; but he can't find God, or get God to engage in this game of judgment. He needed the final appearance of God at the end of the book to review his case, and declare that he is in fact wrong and condemned. But by grace, God will count him as right. He was prepared for this by Elihu's speech in <a href='B:220 37:19'>Job 37:19</a>: "Teach us what we shall tell Him, for we can’t make our case by reason of darkness". "Make our case" is s:w. "set my cause in order".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Shall it be told Him that I would speak? Or should a man wish that he were swallowed up?-</p><h4> Elihu's speech becomes more helpful and appropriate the closer he gets to his conclusion, which is followed by God's words, which Elihu is preparing us for. For that is his function. He is here making the legitimate point that the God who can do such wonders doesn't need to be informed that Job wants to talk to Him. And in the light of all the great potentials which He has prepared, Job's earnest wish for death was inappropriate.</h4>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Now men don’t see the light which is bright in the skies, but the wind passes, and clears them-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The essential light of God was obscured by clouds. But the wind of God's Spirit, which had blown in the great heat of suffering (:17), would likewise clear the clouds and reveal His light.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Out of the north comes golden splendour. With God is awesome majesty-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "From the north come the clouds shining like gold: in these great are the glory and honour of the Almighty". Job several times mentions "the north", connecting with the invaders of Israel "from the north" who would all the same finally be used to glorify God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> We can’t reach the Almighty. He is exalted in power-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Reach" is the word used of how Job sought to "probe" (AV "find out") the Almighty (<a href='B:220 23:3'>Job 23:3</a>; <a href='B:220 28:12'>Job 28:12</a>), whereas Elihu appears to agree with Zophar that "the Almighty" cannot be 'found out' or 'reached' (<a href='B:220 11:7'>Job 11:7</a>; <a href='B:220 37:23'>Job 37:23</a>). God's own appearance at the end is perhaps an answer to this. He cannot be 'found out' by intellectual argument or personal righteousness. Instead, He 'finds out' people and saves them by grace. Paul expresses the same idea when he writes that it is not so much a case of man 'knowing God', but rather of being "known of God" by grace (<a href='B:550 4:9'>Gal 4:9</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>In justice and great righteousness, He will not oppress-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu's speech becomes more helpful and appropriate the closer he gets to his conclusion, which is followed by God's words, which Elihu is preparing us for. For that is his function. Elihu's conclusion is that God doesn't willingly afflict or oppress, and the same conclusion was reached in the context of the exiles by Jeremiah (<a href='B:310 3:33'>Lam 3:33</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Therefore men revere Him. He doesn’t regard any who are wise of heart-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is almost Elihu's repentance, for he has earlier boasted that the "wise in heart" will listen to him and approve his condemnation of Job. But he concludes that men are to revere God because He does not "oppress" and somehow articulates His great justice so as not to afflict His people (:23). And this is quite at variance with all the traditional wisdom of Elihu, the friends and even Job.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Then Yahweh answered Job-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The answer is to Job, not Elihu who has just spoken, nor the friends. The whole focus of the book is upon Job's restoration, and out of that comes the restoration of the friends.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Out of the whirlwind-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The restoration prophets speak of the whirlwind coming to judge both Israel and her abusers (<a href='B:290 40:24'>Isa 40:24</a>; <a href='B:290 41:16'>Isa 41:16</a>; <a href='B:300 23:19'>Jer 23:19</a>; 30:32), and it is through the whirlwind that God's cherubic glory is revealed in exile in Ezekiel. But out of that whirlwind, Yahweh speaks. We read here of Yahweh for the first time; His Name was to be declared through those judgments.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who is this who makes counsel dark by words without knowledge?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The LXX suggests Job had another agenda which he was trying to hide from God, despite Job's protestations of absolute openness and saying precisely what he thought: "Who is this that hides counsel from me, and confines words in his heart, and thinks to conceal them from me?". This would seem to be the sense, because Job pleads guilty to this charge in <a href='B:220 42:3'>Job 42:3</a>. There, he has "hidden counsel without knowledge". And he has done that by 'darkening' that counsel by all his words, which would have been better left unsaid.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Or we can read it as in the Masoretic Text, as an accusation that Job was darkening God's word ["counsel"] by his own words. He was not simply accepting the truth of God's word because he was so full of his own words. And this is what we see in ourselves and humanity generally so often; the Bible's words are crowded out by the words of our own presuppositions.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The Lord and His word is the light of the world. But we can darken that light, if we do not properly reflect it. God complained that Job had darkened His word (<a href='B:220 38:2'>Job 38:2</a> NIV); the truths which Job should have taught to his friends he relayed very imperfectly, through the prism and distortion of clinging on to his own traditions and preconceptions of God, and his deep desire for self justification.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Brace yourself like a man, for I will question you, then you answer Me!-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Like a man" is not said as it might be said today, as an appeal to masculinity. Rather is it asking Job to realize he is human, and to answer these questions as a human. The implication is that by exalting his own words above God's (see on :2), Job was forgetting his humanity and effectively attempting to rise above God. His questions of God had been inappropriate, just as the friends had been wrong to seek wisdom by asking the sages, mere men (<a href='B:220 8:8'>Job 8:8</a>; <a href='B:220 21:29'>Job 21:29</a> s:w:); it is for God to question us. For we and not God are in the dock.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if you have understanding-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In the drama, we imagine a significant silence after each question. The laying of foundations is the word used for what the exiles were to do for the temple in Zion (<a href='B:150 3:6'>Ezr 3:6</a>; <a href='B:150 3:10'>Ezr 3:10</a> etc:). Just as God had laid those foundations without any human observation or strength, so He would lay the foundations of the restored Zion (<a href='B:290 44:28'>Isa 44:28</a>; <a href='B:290 48:13'>Isa 48:13</a>). But the exiles like Job had forgotten that (<a href='B:290 51:13'>Isa 51:13</a>). Zechariah teaches this same parallel between God's laying the foundations of the earth, and His empowering the laying of the temple foundations (<a href='B:450 4:9'>Zec 4:9</a>; <a href='B:450 8:9'>Zec 8:9</a>; <a href='B:450 12:1'>Zec 12:1</a>). But how that was to be done was beyond human understanding. Job was silent when asked as to how it was done. The 'how' of God's purpose is a challenge to our faith, and this is reflected in our theological efforts to explain the 'how' of God's Kingdom. There is an element of mystery to it; for it is by grace alone, beyond our effort and understanding.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who determined its measures, if you know? Or who stretched the line on it?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God had both stretched the line of destruction upon Zion (<a href='B:120 21:13'>2Ki 21:13</a>; <a href='B:310 2:8'>Lam 2:8</a>), and that of restoration (<a href='B:450 1:16'>Zec 1:16</a>). He gave the "measures" for the reconstruction of Zion and the temple system (s:w. often in <a href='B:330 40:5-6'>Eze 40:5-6</a> etc:); and yet He had likewise measured out the earth (s:w. <a href='B:290 40:12'>Isa 40:12</a>). The restoration of Job and all God's people was to be predicated upon the fact that His work could not be measured and was known finally only to Him (s:w. <a href='B:300 31:37'>Jer 31:37</a>; <a href='B:300 33:22'>Jer 33:22</a>). Just as in <a href='B:10 1:9'>Gen 1:9</a> "Let the waters be marked out with a line", so in the new creations God works, He has the power to determine the dimensions of His work in a way we do not.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Whereupon were its foundations fastened?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The answer is 'Apparently upon nothing'. And this is the way of faith; to believe that out of apparently nothing, restoration can come. This was the challenge to Job, the exiles and to all of God's people.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Or who laid its cornerstone-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This again was of special significance to the exiles who were bidden follow Job's path to restoration. The laying of the cornerstone of the new temple was no less an act of pure grace than that of creation in the first place. Hence <a href='B:450 4:7'>Zec 4:7</a> "Who are you, great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you are a plain; and he will bring out the capstone [cornerstone] with shouts of ‘Grace, grace, to it!’". The exiles didn't make use of that grace, and so these plans were reworked, to the even greater provision of the cornerstone in the person of the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:230 118:22'>Psa 118:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> There is an obvious connection with the "sons of God" of the prologue in <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>. I explained there that they refer to Job's fellow worshippers, although they had their Angelic representatives in the court of heaven. But the friends are the fellow worshippers, and the satan figure morphs into the friends. The contrast is therefore with how the sons of God should be rejoicing at God's work in testing and restoring Job, just as their Angelic counterparts did at creation. But instead they were caught up in their petty jealousies and conspiracy theories, and failed to see the wonder of God's new creation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth from the womb-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> There are several allusions in Job to Babylonian legends concerning Marduk – indicating that the book must have been re-written in Babylon with allusion to these legends. Thus the Enuma Elish 4:139,140 speaks of how Marduk limited the waters of Tiamat, and set up a bar and watchmen so that the waters wouldn’t go further than he permitted. But this very language is applied to God in <a href='B:220 7:12'>Job 7:12</a> and <a href='B:220 38:8-11'>Job 38:8-11</a>. One of the purposes of Job was to urge Judah that Yahweh was greater than Marduk, He and not Marduk was to be Israel’s God.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The sea was understood to be the abode of evil monsters. Yet Job stresses how God is in control of the raging sea. Just look out for all the references to the sea in Job (J. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge: C:U:P:, 1985)). The book of Daniel perhaps makes the same point – the beasts that arise out of the raging sea are all under God’s control and part of His purpose with Israel (<a href='B:340 7:2'>Dan 7:2</a>). God artlessly claims to have created the sea (<a href='B:220 38:8-11'>Job 38:8-11</a>). In the Canaanite pantheon, Baal was seen as well matched in conflict by Yam, the sea god. But it’s emphasized by God that He created the sea, shuts it up within bounds, brought it out from the womb (<a href='B:220 38:8'>Job 38:8</a>). See on <a href='B:220 39:2'>Job 39:2</a>.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>As God ‘shut up’ Job (<a href='B:220 1:10'>Job 1:10</a>), so He could ‘shut up’ the sea, with all the evil associated with it (<a href='B:220 38:8'>Job 38:8</a>). For at creation, He had commanded the waters where to go and they obeyed just one word from Him. The point is, God is using poetry to reframe these pagan myths in the context of His omnipotence, to show that His awesome power means that there’s no room left for these supposed beings to exist. It’s noteworthy that many times the Bible speaks of the power of God over raging seas – for the sea was so deeply associated with evil in the minds of Semitic peoples (e:g. <a href='B:230 77:19'>Psa 77:19</a>; <a href='B:230 93:4'>Psa 93:4</a> and the fact that three of the Gospels emphasize how Jesus walked over raging sea – <a href='B:470 8:23-27'>Mat 8:23-27</a>; <a href='B:480 4:36-41'>Mar 4:36-41</a>; <a href='B:490 8:22-25'>Luk 8:22-25</a>; “Who is this? Even the winds and the waves obey Him!”).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> when I made clouds its garment, and wrapped it in thick darkness-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The "thick darkness" is created by God, it is He who can shroud Himself from human understanding; but this doesn't mean that He cannot "judge through the thick darkness" (<a href='B:220 22:13'>Job 22:13</a> s:w:). The thick darkness was only from man's viewpoint; not from God's. The fact man feels God to be distant and shrouded doesn't mean He actually is. And this is a fundamental truth for all time, that our perceptions of God don't mean that this is what He actually is. For God was not created by man in his image and likeness, but the other way around.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The thick darkness was a 2swaddllng-band" for the sea (AV):&nbsp; The newborn sea, fresh as it were from the womb (:8), is completely subject to God as its Creator, and is absolutely not a form of radical evil outside of His control, as was imagined by the surrounding peoples.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Job understands that it is God who sends the good and evil, the light and the darkness, into his life (<a href='B:220 30:26'>Job 30:26</a>). Significantly, he states his faith that God even marks out the boundary between light and darkness (<a href='B:220 26:10'>Job 26:10</a>) – a similar idea in essence to the reassurance of <a href='B:290 45:5'>Isa 45:5</a> that God creates both light and darkness. The ‘darkness’, however we experience and understand it, is framed and limited by God; it is not a power or being with independent existence outside the realm of God’s power. God confirms Job’s understanding later, when He says that it is He who can swaddle the sea [another figure for uncontrollable evil] in bands of darkness (<a href='B:220 38:9'>Job 38:9</a>) – as if to say that it is God who gives things like darkness and the sea their sinister appearance and perception by men; but He is in control of them, using them in His hand. See on <a href='B:220 38:10'>Job 38:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> marked out for it My bound, set bars and doors-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job’s idea that God fixes limits for the darkness is repeated by God saying that He sets limits for the raging sea. God controls evil, or our perception of it (e:g. of the sea as being evil), and He sets limits for it – which was exactly what He did to the power of ‘Satan’ in the prologue to Job. All these statements by God about His use of and power over things like darkness and sea, with the perceptions of them as being independent forces of evil, are quite different to Canaanite and Babylonian views of creation. In them, gods like Baal had to fight Yam, the evil sea god, with clubs provided by other deities; in the Babylonian version, Marduk has to arm himself with various weapons in order to try to get supremacy over Tiamat (S. Dalley, Myths From Mesopotomia: Vol. 4, The Epic of Creation (Oxford: O:U:P:, 1989) pp. 251–255). But Yahweh as revealed in the book of Job has utter and absolute power over the sea [monster] and the [supposed god of] darkness – for He created the sea and the darkness and uses them creatively for His purpose. That’s the whole purpose of the many ‘nature passages’ in the book of Job. And the language of <a href='B:10 1:9'>Gen 1:9</a> is evidence enough of His power. He speaks a word – and light, darkness and seas are created, the waters gathering obediently where He commands them. Likewise God isn’t in any battle with Leviathan – rather is the monster actually His “plaything” (<a href='B:230 104:26'>Psa 104:26</a> says likewise).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The way the doors and bars of even the sea are under God's control connects with how God was to open the great doors of Babylon, to cause the city to fall and release the exiles back to His land (<a href='B:290 45:1'>Isa 45:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> and said, ‘Here you may come, but no further. Here your proud waves shall be stayed?’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The waters were representative of the invading nations. There was a limit to Judah's sufferings, because the waters of the nations had their limits. Job likewise was to be tested so far but no further.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Have you commanded the morning in your days-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God consciously makes the sun rise each day (<a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a>)- it isn't part of a kind of perpetual motion machine. Hence the force of His promises in the prophets that in the same way as He consciously maintains the solar system, so He will maintain Israel. But this is by grace, totally without human involvement nor understanding of the processes, the whys and wherefores with which the dialogues have been so pointlessly taken up.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And caused the dawn to know its place-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is God's comment on Job's words of <a href='B:220 28:23'>Job 28:23</a> about wisdom / relationship with God: "God understands its way, and He knows its place". Just as there is a sense in the natural creation that things such as the dawn have a specific "place" known by God alone (<a href='B:220 38:12'>Job 38:12</a> s:w:), so the way of true relationship with Him, "wisdom", is known by Him alone. We do not find that "place" by intellectual effort, searching hither and thither, but by being open to God's leading of us as Job was.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, and shake the wicked out of it?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If the "earth" as in the sense of eretz Israel is in view, then the ends of the earth were where the exiles were located, in Persia / Babylon. The idea of a dawning which chases away evil is used in <a href='B:460 4:2-3'>Mal 4:2-3</a> of what could have happened at the restoration of the exiles- had they followed Job's path.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> It is changed as clay under the seal-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Although Job is written in ancient Hebrew, there are many signs of how it was rewritten in Babylon. The Babylonians used seals which were impressed upon clay rather than wax. Perhaps the idea is that as the seal changes clay (what man is made from) from a formless lump into something highly significant, so God can work with man. But the original is very unclear. LXX: "Or didst thou take clay of the ground, and form a living creature, and set it with the power of speech upon the earth?"</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And stands forth as a garment-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is of an embroidered dress, where valuable stones make the pattern stand out in relief. Again the sense is that God can transform the very ordinary into something of beauty and significance.</p>


